I Presidenti di Assemblea e la funzione (politica) di garanzia costituzionale. Rileggendo la monografia di Gianni Ferrara – N. Lupo
Ringrazio molto per l’invito a tenere questa “rilettura” presso il prestigioso dottorato pisano in Scienze giuridiche, a maggior ragione perché, in questo caso, nell’individuare il relatore, avete scelto uno studioso che non è allievo dell’autore della monografia che è al centro dell’incontro. Anzi, si potrebbe persino sostenere che quelli che considero i miei principali riferimenti scientifici – a partire da Andrea Manzella, Gian Candido De Martin e Ugo De Siervo, con ascendenze multiple, ma più o meno riconducibili lungo la linea Costantino Mortati, Paolo Barile, Leopoldo Elia – appartenessero a filoni differenti, se non opposto a quello in cui militava Gianni Ferrara (Casal di Principe, 21 aprile 1929 – Roma, 20 febbraio 2021): ossia, il filone che aveva come principali “maestri” Alfonso Tesauro e Giuseppe Guarino.
Abstract: The contribution, which originates from a lecture held at the PhD in Pisa, proposes a rereading of Gianni Ferrara’s justly famous monograph on “Il Presidente di assemblea parlamentare” (Giuffrè, 1965). It notes that this is a book founding the republican parliamentary law, in many ways the progenitor of an important season of studies of parliamentary law that took place between the second half of the 60s and the beginning of the following decade, which concerned different subjects, united by a new conception of parliamentary law, understood not in a merely procedural sense, but with a higher approach, as the part of constitutional law which is closer to politics. Differently from the most frequent reading, it is argued that the reflections carried out by Ferrara are the basis not only of the configuration of the President of the assembly as a “man of the majority” and “guarantor of the implementation of the government program”, but also as its framing as a guarantor of the Constitution and of the rules of procedure: that is, called, in line with what was established by judgement no. 9 of 1959 of the Constitutional Court, to ensure, in the context of parliamentary proceedings, adequate forms of guarantee as to ensure their compliance not only with the constitutional norms – which the Constitutional Court should supervise – but above all with the provisions contained in the rules of procedure of each House.