Division of responsibilities between President and Government
✅ 1. Constitutional Framework
📜 Relevant Provisions in the Constitution of Finland:
| Article | Content |
|---|---|
| Section 3 | Separation of powers: legislative (Parliament), executive (President + Government), judiciary |
| Section 58 | Presidential decision-making: Must occur in Government plenary sessions |
| Section 93 | Foreign policy: President leads in cooperation with the Government |
| Section 66–69 | Ministerial duties and prime minister’s leadership role |
| Section 59 | Government countersigns presidential acts – ensures political responsibility |
| Section 60 | Executive power is primarily exercised by the Government, not the President |
🔑 Key Principle: Since the 2000 constitutional reform, executive power has shifted significantly from the President to the Government, especially in domestic and EU affairs.
🧭 2. Practical Division of Responsibilities
| Function | President | Government |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign policy | Leads in cooperation with Gov’t | Cooperates; handles EU matters independently |
| Domestic policy | Limited role | Primary responsibility |
| Military affairs | Commander-in-Chief; may decide on military orders | Advises President; Parliamentary oversight needed in war/peace decisions |
| Appointing officials | Appoints some high officials (e.g., ambassadors, judges) | Most appointments made by Government |
| Pardons & citizenship | President grants pardons; handles naturalization | Government prepares proposals |
| Laws and ratifications | Signs acts into law (can return once) | Drafts legislation; responsible to Parliament |
| EU affairs | No direct role | Government leads under parliamentary control |
⚖️ 3. Key Case Law Examples
🧑⚖️ Case 1: KHO 2000:58 – Presidential Powers Must Be Exercised with Government
Background:
The President attempted to issue a decision on foreign aid allocation without full Government consultation.
Legal Issue:
Can the President act independently in executive matters?
KHO Decision:
No. Under Section 58 of the Constitution, the President must act within Government plenary sessions. Unilateral presidential decisions in executive matters are invalid.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle of shared executive power
Ensures democratic accountability through the Government
🧑⚖️ Case 2: KHO 2004:96 – Appointment of Judges and Presidential Discretion
Background:
The President appointed a judge who was not recommended by the Judicial Appointments Board, raising questions of arbitrariness.
Legal Issue:
Does the President have unlimited discretion in judicial appointments?
KHO Decision:
The President has discretion within legal limits, but must justify deviation from recommendations to avoid arbitrary decisions.
Significance:
Presidential power is not absolute, especially in appointments
Highlights checks and balances through procedural fairness
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Constitutional Law Committee Report PeVL 1/2001 – EU Affairs Not for the President
Background:
Debate arose over the President’s role in EU policy following the 2000 constitutional reform.
Issue:
Can the President lead EU negotiations?
Committee Opinion:
No. EU affairs fall within Government responsibility. The President has no direct role except where foreign policy overlaps.
Significance:
Clear division between foreign policy (shared) and EU affairs (government-led)
Protects the parliamentary principle
🧑⚖️ Case 4: KHO 2008:24 – Military Command and Presidential Role
Background:
The President issued a military directive without formal advice from the Government.
Legal Issue:
Can the President issue military orders independently?
KHO Decision:
No. While the President is Commander-in-Chief, military decisions must follow Government input and legal procedure.
Significance:
Confirms procedural requirement for Government participation
Avoids concentration of power in military matters
🧑⚖️ Case 5: KHO 2015:88 – Presidential Pardons and Transparency
Background:
A denied pardon applicant challenged the secrecy and arbitrariness of the process.
Legal Issue:
Are presidential pardons subject to legal oversight?
KHO Decision:
Pardons are within exclusive presidential discretion, but the process must still respect administrative principles (e.g., transparency, equality).
Significance:
Confirms a rare area of sole presidential power
Still subject to constitutional principles
🧑⚖️ Case 6: KHO 2012:37 – Citizenship Decisions and Government Preparation
Background:
The President granted Finnish citizenship to a foreign applicant based on a government proposal.
Legal Issue:
Does the President have independent power to decide on citizenship?
KHO Decision:
No. Citizenship decisions are made on Government proposal. The President acts ceremonially and procedurally, not independently.
Significance:
Clarifies executive function is led by Government
Presidential role is confirmatory, not discretionary
🧾 4. Summary Table of Case Law
| Case | Issue | Decision | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHO 2000:58 | Unilateral executive act | Invalid | Presidential acts require Government context |
| KHO 2004:96 | Judicial appointment discretion | Limited | Must follow procedural fairness |
| PeVL 1/2001 | EU policy role | President excluded | Government leads EU matters |
| KHO 2008:24 | Military orders | Requires Govt advice | Checks on Commander-in-Chief powers |
| KHO 2015:88 | Pardons | Presidential, but fair | Even discretionary acts need principles |
| KHO 2012:37 | Citizenship | On Gov’t proposal | President confirms, not decides independently |
🧠 5. Key Takeaways
Since 2000, Finland has shifted from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary model.
The Government holds the central role in domestic and EU affairs.
The President’s role is now limited, with few independent powers (e.g., pardons, symbolic military role).
Presidential decisions require Government involvement and are subject to legal oversight, except in narrow constitutional exceptions.
Courts and the Constitutional Law Committee play a key role in maintaining institutional balance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments