## Facts

- Parliament enacted a law amending Article 10 of Law No. 3/2000 on the organization and conduct of referenda, in the context of a planned referendum on dismissing the President.
- The amendment altered the voting threshold for dismissal, allowing dismissal by a simple majority of votes cast in the referendum rather than a higher threshold tied to registered voters.
- A group of 71 members of the Chamber of Deputies challenged the amendment through an a priori objection of unconstitutionality before promulgation.
- The challengers argued the amendment undermined separation of powers and democratic legitimacy by permitting removal of a President with a lower vote threshold than the threshold associated with presidential election.
- The Court noted that, independently of Article 10’s voting rule, Article 5(2) of Law No. 3/2000 imposes a turnout quorum for referendum validity: participation by an absolute majority of persons registered on permanent electoral lists.

## Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Article 10 of Law No. 3/2000 setting a simple-majority voting rule for a presidential dismissal referendum violates constitutional requirements of a democratic state, rule of law, and separation of powers.
2. Whether the legislature may alter the referendum voting threshold for presidential dismissal, given the Constitution’s provisions on presidential election and dismissal by referendum and the need to preserve institutional balance.

## Decision

- The Court rejected the objection and held the amendment constitutional.
- The Court ruled that the Constitution does not fix a specific voting-majority formula for the presidential dismissal referendum and leaves implementing details to legislation.
- The Court held that the uniform statutory turnout quorum in Article 5(2) remains an essential condition for validity for all referenda, including a presidential dismissal referendum.
- The Court concluded that, within a referendum that meets the turnout quorum, a simple majority of votes cast for dismissal does not, by itself, breach separation of powers or democratic legitimacy.

## Legal Principles

- Where the Constitution provides for a referendum but does not prescribe the voting-majority rule, the legislature may regulate the referendum’s decisional rule by organic law, subject to constitutional limits.
- A turnout quorum requiring participation by an absolute majority of registered voters may be treated as a general, referendum-validity condition applicable across referendum types.
- Separation of powers is not violated merely because the legislature adjusts referendum voting thresholds, so long as dismissal remains contingent on a valid referendum and a popular vote under the governing legal framework.
- Democratic legitimacy of a presidential dismissal referendum may be ensured through combined requirements of (i) satisfaction of the validity quorum and (ii) a majority vote among participants.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the amendment permitting presidential dismissal by a simple majority of votes cast, reasoning that the Constitution leaves the detailed decisional rule to legislation and that the statutory turnout quorum remains the central safeguard ensuring that a dismissal referendum reflects popular will.


In re Constitutionality of the Law Amending Article 10 of Law No. 3/2000 (Rom. Const. Ct. Decision No. 731, July 10, 2012)