Guram Macharashvili: “Your aim was to discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church”

Verdict: FactCheck concludes that Guram Macharashvili’s statement is a LIE.

Nino Lomjaria: “The MPs’ claim that the Public Defender fights the Georgian Orthodox Church with that case is unsubstantiated.”

Verdict: FactCheck concludes that Nino Lomjaria’s statement is a True.

Resume:

As a part of constitutional control, legal norms are verified if they are in line with fundamental human rights which is one of the mechanisms of protecting the constitution.

The Public Defender’s lawsuit which disputed a discriminatory attitude vis-à-vis other religious organisations was aimed to protect the constitution, in general, and the right to equality as one of the basic human rights, in particular.

To put it simply, the Public Defender did not dispute the right of the Georgian Orthodox Church to appropriate forested land plots into its ownership but believed that it was discriminatory to grant this privilege exclusively to the Georgian Orthodox Church.

Therefore, the aim of the case was not to discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church but to determine whether this particular legal norm was in line with the Constitution, something which is a main task for any democratic state.

Analysis

On 7 October 2022, at the plenary session of the Parliament of Georgia, MPs posed questions to Nino Lomjaria. Some of their questions were about the constitutional lawsuit in which the Public Defender appealed to Section 6 of Article 3 of the Law of Georgia on State Property vis-à-vis the right to equality.

This norm allows the Georgian Orthodox Church to appropriate forests adjacent to their churches when purchasing state property (which were in state ownership before the norm came into effect) which in each case should not exceed 20 hectares.

The MPs denounced the Public Defender’s decision as an attempt to discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church.

Beka Odisharia stated: “You continue to pose yourself as a helper and a guardian of everyone. However, I would like to ask you what your problem is vis-à-vis the Georgian Autocephalous Orthodox Church?”

Guram Macharashvili stated: “What was your aim? To discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church? To show that the Patriarchate has immeasurably large power?”

FactCheck took interest in whether or not the Public Defender’s lawsuit lodged at the Constitutional Court of Georgia was aimed to discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church.

The effective implementation of constitutional legal norms is the most important task of any democratic state. In order to fulfil this task, it is important to have relevant constitutional legal safeguards. Generally, there are different mechanisms to legally protect to Constitution, although the major institution for the Constitution’s legal protection is the constitutional control according to the general consensus.

Constitutional control implies the verification of laws in order to see whether or not they are line with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court verifies laws under the application lodged by physical persons, the President of Georgia or other subjects where they argue that some specific norm contradicts the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia. It is this possibility that the Public Defender of Georgia is making use of this process of verification. In her lawsuit, the Constitutional Court considers whether or not the aforementioned normative act is line with basic human rights as recognised by Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Georgia.

The Public Defender of Georgia was criticised by Georgian MPs for her lawsuit vis-à-vis the norm which granted certain privileges to the Georgian Orthodox Church. The lawsuit illustrated that the exception granted to the Georgian Orthodox Church contradicts the constitutionally enshrined equality principle because allowing such exceptions is discriminatory vis-à-vis other religious organisations.

The Public Defender overviews the practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in her lawsuit. The Constitutional Court of Georgia, under the ruling made on 3 July 2018, declared the normative content of this particular article of the Law of Georgia on State Property that envisioned transferring state property free of charge exclusively to the Georgian Orthodox Church to be unconstitutional. The Court noted that the recognition of special role of the Orthodox Church is based on its historical contribution and is not intended to ensure privileged legal status for the Orthodox Christian religion. Differentiation and granting legal superiority to the Church is not and should not be the aim of the Constitution. At the same time, granting certain rights to the Georgian Orthodox Church does not imply that other religious organisations should not be able to use the same right. Therefore, the Constitutional Court ruled that differentiation under the disputed legal norm is not a requirement of the Constitution of Georgia and it imposes a differentiated approach based on religious denomination which lacks sufficient, objective and reasonable justification. This ruling once again confirms that lawsuit lodged by the Public Defender is logical and well-grounded.

The Public Defender of Georgia disputed granting such privilege to the Georgian Orthodox Church and in this manner perhaps reiterated the clear stance of the Constitutional Court of Georgia that granting certain privileges to the Church does not imply hindering other religious organisations to use the very same right. Therefore, the aim of the Public Defender was not to discredit the Church but to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality.

It should be stated emphatically that with that lawsuit, the Public Defender of Georgia does not oppose the Georgian Orthodox Church but, rather, the Parliament of Georgia for adopting such a legal norm which may contradict the existing practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. To put it simply, the Public Defender did not dispute the right of the Georgian Orthodox Church to appropriate forested land plots into its ownership but believed that it was discriminatory to grant this privilege exclusively to the Georgian Orthodox Church. There is not a single sentence in the lawsuit that is aimed to discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church. The lawsuit is intended to ensure the principle of equality stemming from the idea of a secular state. The title of the case naturally emphasises the dispute between the Public Defender and Parliament of Georgia (Public Defender of Georgia v Parliament of Georgia). It is clear that the Public Defender’s lawsuit was intended to protect the right to equality, enshrined in the Constitution of Georgia, and had nothing to do with discrediting the Georgian Orthodox Church. Therefore, the allegations of the MPs against the Public Defender are legally unsubstantiated. Their approach that constitutional control over legal norms related to the Georgian Orthodox Church is an attack is unhealthy and sparks a negative attitude in the public both vis-à-vis the Public Defender and the role and importance of constitutional control in general.

The Public Defender is granted authority to control legal norms by the Constitution of Georgia. This, as mentioned multiple times, is intended to protect the Constitution and is an integral part of a democratic state. Therefore, the Public Defender’s decision to exercise constitutional control should not be perceived as an attempt to discredit the Georgian Orthodox Church. Taking all of this into consideration, Nino Lomjaria’s statement is TRUE whilst the idea of Guram Macharashvili’s statement that the Public Defender sought to discredit the Patriarchate with that lawsuit is a LIE.

[1] Kakhiani, G. “Constitutional Control in Georgia and the Challenges of Its Functioning: Analysis of Legislation and Practice” (Tbilisi, 2008).