WILLEMSTAD - A new wave of criticism has been directed at Prime Minister Gilmar Pisas, who is being accused of misinterpreting the powers of the President of Parliament in the ongoing dispute over the postponed parliamentary meeting requested by opposition members.
In a strongly worded statement titled “Does Prime Minister Pisas Not Understand, or Does He Pretend Not to?”, several prominent political figures and legal experts argue that the Prime Minister’s recent public remarks reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary law and the separation of powers.
According to the statement, Pisas wrongly suggested that the President of Parliament has the authority to suspend meetings “until further notice,” citing previous instances as justification. “That is not the issue at hand,” the author writes. “The real question is whether the President of Parliament has the authority to evaluate the usefulness of, and cancel, a meeting that has been convened at the request of three Members of Parliament.”
“The Law Is Clear”
The letter cites Article 64, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Rules of Order of Parliament (RdO), which clearly defines two ways in which a parliamentary meeting can be called:
At the initiative of the President of Parliament – for example, when a law or request from a citizen or minister is submitted. In such cases, the President does have discretion over when and how the meeting is held.
At the request of three Members of Parliament – which constitutes a constitutional right. In this case, the President’s duty is only to convene the meeting within 14 days; they have no authority to assess the meeting’s purpose or to cancel it.
The statement emphasizes:
“In the current dispute, the meeting was not called by the President but by three Members of Parliament, exercising their constitutional right under Article 64(3) of the Rules of Order. The President therefore has no power to judge its effectiveness or cancel it. It is not her prerogative — it is the MPs’ meeting, not hers. Anything else is anti-democratic.”
“Parliament, Not the President, Has the Final Say”
The authors also refer to Article 120 of the Rules of Order, which states that when the law provides no clear solution, a majority of Members of Parliament must decide the outcome — not the President of Parliament. They
argue that if the Speaker wishes to question the purpose of a meeting requested by MPs, she must first convene the session, bring the matter before Parliament, and allow members to vote. “That is how the rule of law works,” the statement notes.
Principle of Legality
The letter stresses that all public authority must be anchored in law, citing the principle of legality (legaliteitsbeginsel).
“Every act or authority of an organ must be based on law. If such authority is not explicitly granted, it does not exist — and remains with the higher body. In this case, the higher authority is the full Parliament, not the President of Parliament.”
Supported by Former Leaders
The statement concludes by noting that these legal interpretations have been repeatedly explained over the past weeks by former Prime Ministers Maria Liberia-Peters and Suzy Camelia-Römer, as well as by Frank Hanze and the author of the document.
Their message is consistent: the President of Parliament acted outside her authority, and Prime Minister Pisas is either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the constitutional framework that safeguards parliamentary democracy in Curaçao.
The dispute continues to fuel political tension between the government and opposition factions, who argue that the Prime Minister is interfering with the independence of Parliament — a move they say undermines Curaçao’s democratic system.
