Improve the Institute of Public Hearing in the Drafting of Laws (RS0023)

THEME: GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY – FIGHTING CORRUPTION; COMMITMENT 10: Improve the institute of public hearing in the drafting of laws; Status quo or problem addressed by the commitment: It is not uncommon for the Government to submit bills for parliamentary debate without first holding a public hearing. Since the criteria for determining when a public hearing has to be held in the legislative process, as set out in the Law on Public Administration and the Government’s Rules of Procedure, are not sufficiently clear and are subject to different interpretations in practice, this issue should be addressed in detail through amendments to those regulations. Moreover, even when public hearings are held, stakeholders’ comments and suggestions are sometimes not taken into account and Ministries sometimes fail to explain in the reports of public hearings how they reviewed such suggestions and proposals, whether they accepted such suggestions and proposals and, if so, to what extent. Lack of public hearings and enactment of laws in an expedited procedure are detrimental to civic participation and transparency; furthermore, laws enacted in this way are as a rule deficient in some way and entail a certain level of corruption risks. Main objective: To create legal assumptions for public hearings and ensure that texts of draft laws submitted for public hearing are subsequently modified primarily as a result of acceptance of comments and suggestions made in the public hearing. This should apply to all laws, except in cases where certain precisely defined criteria are met that require immediate action, where the laws are passed to ratify international agreements or where the so-called “technical” amendments are made to laws, i.e. amendments which do not affect the existing conditions and the manner in which natural persons and legal entities exercise their rights and responsibilities etc. Cases when laws are enacted without a public hearing should be kept at an absolute minimum and this should be done only when strictly necessary, in urgent situations where postponement is not possible, in accordance with precisely defined criteria. Furthermore, a duty should be imposed on public authorities when drafting laws to post on their website all received proposals and comments, as well as reasons for accepting or rejecting those proposals, before providing a detailed report of the public hearing. Interactive relations should be established with stakeholders to ensure that any proposals and suggestions made during a public hearing are clearly conceived, consistent and as specific as possible. Brief description of commitment (140-character limit): Amendments to the Law on Public Administration and the Government’s Rules of Procedure as they pertain to mandatory public hearings in the drafting of laws. OGP challenge addressed by the commitment: Strengthening public integrity; Relevance: This commitment will clearly contribute to the attainment of all proclaimed principles of the Open Government Partnership – transparency and civic participation. Namely, amendments to these regulations should ensure that public hearings are held on a regular basis and that draft laws submitted for public hearing can subsequently be modified primarily as a result of acceptance of comments and suggestions made during public hearings; the amendments should also provide for publishing of all received proposals and comments, as well as reasons for accepting or rejecting such proposals. Ambition: Public hearings are held in the process of enactment of all laws, except in cases where certain precisely defined criteria are met that require immediate action, where the laws are passed to ratify international agreements or where the so-called “technical” amendments are made to laws, i.e. amendments which do not affect the existing conditions and the manner in which natural persons and legal entities exercise their rights and responsibilities etc. Furthermore, when drafting laws, public authorities post on their website all received proposals and comments, as well as reasons for accepting or rejecting those proposals. This contributes to greater transparency in the legislative process, encourages civic participation in the legislative process and improves the quality of enacted laws.

For Commitment details, please see Serbia Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 (Year 1).

For commitment details, see Serbia End-of-Term Report 2016–2018.