The wrong target

• The difference between identifying individuals and understanding systems
• Why truth is not a matter of selection but of structure
• The illusion of personality-driven reform

Mr President,

There is a fundamental difference between wishing to determine whether a system is dysfunctional and wishing exclusively to identify those who have not erred. In effect, this is the difference between bringing the truth to light and burying it.

How can you adopt such an approach?

You can do so only if you implicitly accept an absurd conclusion: that “there has been no real problem within the justice system”, much as one might claim that “there has been no war”, simply because too few survivors are willing or able to attest to it.

In a context of growing public anger, we are, metaphorically, fiddling with a hole in a sock while the real issue is that the trousers are torn at the back.

And, perhaps paradoxically, precisely because the scope is so narrow and so precisely “targeted”, we have been spared the need to offer society a genuine opportunity to imagine solutions. Otherwise, the Messiah would have reappeared.

Yet we are nevertheless witnessing a phenomenon of “demand induction” driven by public figures — this time, figures cast as arbiters of justice.

However, this mechanism of “waving” a single individual before the public eye — even if it is LCK — in place of genuine judicial reform is beginning to lose its effect.

It is the same type of diversion we have experienced before, when the absence of a coherent governing solution in the interest of the country, rather than personal interests, was concealed through a transfer of hope.

That is how you were elected President: through hope.

For this reason, order matters. Reform must first be conceived and built. Only then should appointments be made.

Otherwise, we will fill up with messianic figures and successive illusions.

If we, as a society, have long been crying out that we experience an intolerable level of impunity within the system, and the Recorder documentary has merely catalysed this cry, transforming it into a collective outcry, it follows that more than half of the “soldiers” were already lost.

Under these conditions, there are too few who have not erred for the truth to be inferred from exceptions.

A concrete example: a single signature at the Court of Appeal yesterday — that of Judge Moroșanu.

If you isolate the truth according to the number of those who dare to publicly distance themselves, you implicitly place all others on the opposite side of the barricade.

This error of approach overlaps with an already flawed decision-making regime, in which primary legislative responsibility has been systematically delegated and circumvented.

Simulated reform

ÎBetween 2023 and 2025, the Romanian state functioned predominantly through emergency ordinances.

Within this framework, the package of criminal law amendments adopted between March and September 2025 (Laws no. 19, 64, 70, 116 and 142/2025) represents the formalisation, through fragmented voting, of an architecture already imposed by the Executive.

All these, within a system in which Parliament no longer exercised meaningful control.

Thus, raising the monetary threshold for the offence of abuse of office (Law no. 19/2025), restricting the duration of preventive measures (Law no. 64/2025), modifying the limitation regime with restrictive effects on the reopening of criminal proceedings (Law no. 70/2025), introducing additional conditions for surveillance in economic cases (Law no. 116/2025), and limiting the possibility of reviewing final judgments (Law no. 142/2025) collectively reconfigure the criminal framework according to a logic of progressive reduction of liability.

The cumulative impact of this legislative package is the relaxation of criminal liability for acts of corruption and the consolidation of procedural constraints on criminal investigations, with a direct effect on the system’s capacity to investigate and sanction abusive decisions.

Within such a normative framework, the truth may be as uncomfortable as it pleases — it is irrelevant. It is structurally inaccessible.

It is entirely logical that the vast majority of magistrates understand this. It’s equally possible that they have internalised the fact that the system operates according to a mechanism in which pressure is the norm.

Yet these adaptations took place long ago, within a state that chose to govern through delegation rather than deliberation.

The truth has become impossible

And yet, you have chosen to seek the truth by identifying those who “have not erred”, within a system whose very normative framework has been constructed so that wrongdoing is difficult to sanction.

Under such conditions, few “biblical stones” will be cast. There is no basis for them.

The problem has been framed incorrectly. You have identified as your target the only potential heroes and risk turning them into victims. At the same time, you have learned nothing about the guilty.

The guilty, however, at this moment, know exactly who the heroes are.

Thank you.