WILLEMSTAD – Prime Minister Gilmar Pisas has acknowledged that members of Curaçao Parliament have the right to criticize and publicly challenge government ministers, including those belonging to their own political party. He also maintains that imposing political sanctions on parliamentarians for carrying out their constitutional responsibilities is not a practice of his administration.
The prime minister made these statements in written responses dated October 6 to seven parliamentary questions submitted by opposition PNP Member of Parliament Sheldry Osepa.
Osepa submitted his questions on July 5 after expressing serious concerns about earlier public statements by Pisas concerning political loyalty and the relationship between parliamentarians and their party leadership.
According to Osepa, the prime minister's previous remarks created the impression that parliamentarians who critically question ministers from their own party could be regarded as acting against their political organization or the government.
The PNP parliamentarian described such an interpretation as dangerous and contrary to democratic principles.
Osepa emphasized that members of Parliament receive their mandate directly from voters, not from political party leaders or the prime minister. Their constitutional responsibility is to scrutinize government policies and decisions, regardless of which political party controls the administration.
In his written responses, Pisas confirmed that parliamentarians derive their authority from the electorate and are not subordinate to the prime minister.
He also acknowledged that members of Parliament must be able to exercise their oversight responsibilities even when doing so requires questioning or challenging ministers from their own political party.
When asked whether a parliamentarian may publicly disagree with a minister from the same political organization when the national interest requires it, Pisas answered affirmatively.
According to the prime minister, these principles form part of the foundations of parliamentary democracy.
However, his response was more qualified when Osepa asked whether he could guarantee that parliamentarians supporting the government would not face political pressure for exercising their independent judgment.
Pisas pointed out that Curaçao currently does not have a coalition government. His MFK party holds an absolute majority in Parliament, allowing it to govern without coalition partners.
He explained that in governments formed through political coalitions, parliamentarians must take into account agreements reached between the participating parties.
Based on his experience in Curaçao politics, Pisas expressed confidence that such political agreements are respected in practice.
On the separate question of whether parliamentarians could face political consequences for carrying out their constitutional duties, the prime minister stated that imposing such sanctions is not a practice of the current government.
The exchange highlights the distinction between political party loyalty and the constitutional independence of elected representatives.
Osepa had warned that placing party loyalty above parliamentary oversight could undermine the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
He argued that parliamentarians must retain the freedom to question government decisions, including those made by ministers representing their own political organization.
Pisas agreed that parliamentary oversight is a fundamental safeguard against the abuse of government power.
However, the prime minister did not directly address the specific earlier statements that prompted Osepa's questions. He also did not explain what safeguards are in place to protect parliamentarians from potential political pressure within their parties.
The discussion is particularly relevant to Curaçao's current political situation, in which MFK controls both the government and an absolute majority in Parliament.
Although the party's parliamentary majority provides political stability, the constitutional responsibility to scrutinize government decisions remains with all members of Parliament, including those supporting the administration.
Pisas' written answers establish his position that parliamentarians have the right to exercise that responsibility independently, even when their criticism is directed at ministers from their own party.