Since 2017, when the governor has also sworn in some ministers as members of parliament, I have announced my thoughts on these appointments through the news media. My position was and is that in accordance with article 45 paragraph f of our Constitution (Streg), a member of parliament cannot also be a minister. Article 30 paragraph 2 g states that a minister cannot be a member of Parliament at the same time.

However, in Article 30 paragraph 3 of the Streg an exception is made for a minister who has been elected as a member of Parliament, can exercise both functions for a maximum of 3 months.

Conflict between article 30 paragraph 3 and article 45 paragraph f

The legislator has not made an exception under article 45 subsection f, in connection with the provisions under article 30 subsection 3. So it can be assumed that article 30 subsection 3 and 45 subsection f of the Streg conflict with each other. It is clear that such an exception as mentioned in article 30 paragraph 3 of the Streg, is contrary to the fundamental principle of the Trias Politica. A minister cannot also check his own policy as a parliamentarian. Not even for three months. In 2017, the ministers, being members of the council, adopted the budget of their ministries in the council of states.

The legislator has apparently also recognized my statements

At the time of the Netherlands Antilles, Article 45 paragraph f was not mentioned in the Streg. This article was only added when the Streg of the country Curaçao was drafted. Apparently, the legislator has also established what I have described above. However, the legislator has not removed Article 30 paragraph 3 from the Streg.

I think the legislator has overlooked this. There is no other way, because then adding Article 45, paragraph f, would not have been necessary. This article conflicts with article 30, paragraph 3, because no exception has been made in article 45, paragraph f, with regard to what is laid down in article 30, paragraph 3.

As a result, the governor at the time did not have to swear in the ministers as parliamentarians. The governor should have indicated that there was a conflicting situation between the two articles, which had to be corrected first. After the swearing-in, the governor did demand the newly appointed members of the council, in an accompanying letter, to remove the ambiguities in the Constitution.

So I assume that the governor, too, has noted the positions I have indicated. That is why I now say that the governor must be careful that she does not make the same mistake again. If that nevertheless happens, I will inform the higher authorities within our Kingdom of my argument stated in this communication.

I hereby also advise that a committee should be installed to scrutinize the Constitution and to correct the existing ambiguities and errors that exist in it.