The theme is one of those who for some time warms public opinion, always very attentive to the (supposed) privileges of the palace and of those who live in it, and not willing to think about the opportunity or not of certain choices. When it comes to rummage to the ladies, a sort of Robin Hood syndrome is inevitable. The technically complex question is that which concerns a drappello of former deputies (not a few, around 800) signatories of an appeal against the recalculation of the annuity deliberated in 2018 by the then president of the Chamber, Roberto Fico, when by virtue of the transition from the remuneration system to the contribution one, many of the checks in question were heavily reduced.

80 percent cut pension: because it happened

In some cases of 80 percent, on average between 30 and 50. A “recalculation” that for all citizens was introduced by the Dini reform of 1995 (with a series of brackets and exemptions, to mitigate the impact in a first phase) and which in Parliament arrived in 2012. From that moment our representatives also have pensions based on the poured.

Where then is the problem, the one that emerged from the appeal of the ex? There is that the Fico resolution authorized a “retroactive” recalculation, also on the years preceding in 2012, substantially indemnified the universally accepted principle of the “acquired right”, what the Constitution protects as “legitimate expectation” and falling the ancient mannaia in tribute to the vulgate of the moment and of which the Cinquestelle had made themselves Alfieri (“we will open the Parliament as a box”, promise). A vulgar so powerful as to provide measures that in other cases would certainly have been avoided, because they are destined to crash against appeals and counter -appeal, thus generating the paradoxical effect of a loss for the public coffers in terms of legal expenses, lawyers and anything else.

From Roberto Fico to the 5Stelle: who are the Ultras Anticasta

In these days, an internal commission of the Chamber has pronounced on the matter, rejecting the appeal of the ladies in question, moreover contradicting a similar decision taken by the Senate (which accepted identical application of the “cousins” of Palazzo Madama) and another decision, always of the Chamber, who in 2021 had pronounced on another similar appeal, but this time of older deputies, and also in that case it had given them. The annuity in essence had remained in both cases as it was.

But beyond the decisions on the legitimacy or otherwise of the fig cut, it is perhaps appropriate to question: the former deputies who ask to be treated as the normal citizens against whom the principle of “acquired”, for which if the state recognizes you a right, then can no longer go back, or the then president of the Chamber and the Ultras ancient for which it is a “ingust” Duty to recalculate it also for the period in theoretical theoretical? In essence: the deputies are citizens like others always and in any case, or in certain circumstances, when it is evident that they have used privileges, can a particular regime be applied, which restores equity?

It is clear that in the face of this question, everyone makes their evaluations, according to their own sensitivity. Trying to use the head of the belly more, however, let’s realize that we are in a state of law and ask ourselves if in the name of violated equality (the old privileges of parliamentarians) it is appropriate to authorize inequalities. Is it correct to apply punitive principles to former parliamentarians who are rightly excluded for common citizens?

Ilona Staller and the other former deputies: because they are right

“The law is the same for everyone”, it is written in the courts, and the equality of citizens is the basis of our Constitution (art. 3), even when we do not like it and even when the situations of now are the result of (incorrect) privileges of the past, however healed. Years in which the “remuneration” as we have seen, was not only the prerogative of the deputies, and let’s not forget the privilege of those hundreds of thousands of public employees who at a certain moment could retire after the phantom fifteen years six months and one day.

Of course, the various Paolo Guzzanti, Fabrizio Cicchitto, Ilona Staller, Claudio Martelli, Antonio Bassolino, as well as Claudio Scajola, Giovanna Melandri, Angelino Alfano, Gianni Alemanno, up to the Barricadero Mario Capanna and many others will still not starve with a “remodeled” check that will be higher than that of millions of pensioners. But can this be a sufficient principle to form a “right” state in which we would all like to live? Do we not risk otherwise to expire in justice “a kilo”? Ask it and try without unnecessary grudges to give us an answer.

Read the other opinions on uisjournal.com