A very difficult situation - the president's hands are largely tied after the changes made to the Constitution. One of the most illogical positions that should be held by the Prime Minister are the chairman and deputy chairman of the Audit Chamber, and the most independent is the Ombudsman and his deputy. This is what he commented in the show "Bulgaria, Europe and the world in focus" on Radio "Focus" Anton Stankov, former Minister of Justice.
"The main function of the Audit Office is to control the spending of the budget. I want to ask how one of the heads of the Audit Office will check himself during his period as acting Prime Minister how he spent the budget. Does it seem objective to you?", Stankov pointed out.
In his words, if the chairman of the National Assembly becomes acting prime minister, it would be interesting: "This proposal deeply affects the problem of whether he will be able to participate in an election campaign for the next parliament? This question it stands the same way with regard to the ministers in a future caretaker government". Regarding the Ombudsman, Anton Stankov said: "Diana Kovacheva is a wonderful person, professor, etc. Her ability was assessed and she went to judge in Strasbourg, the Bulgarian representative in Strasbourg, and Mrs. Elena Cherneva-Markova resigned.
BNB Governor Dimitar Radev's statement that: "It is not a good idea for the Central Bank to interfere in political processes", Anton Stankov commented as follows: "Mr. Radev's statement is very correct and adequate , however, this issue should have been checked even before the changes to the Constitution. Even when this short list of possible candidates was being created. Unfortunately, this has not been done and now we hear objections. A key question is also the composition of the government, how will it be formed? Who is responsible for this caretaker government. Because in the old edition it was very clearly about the president bearing the responsibility. Now the responsibility is not clear and what is the meaning, why this question is raised not only by me, but also by other constitutionalists. Political responsibility means bearing both the positives and the negatives of certain actions. So who will carry the negatives? It is clear about the positives, there will always be someone who says: "If it wasn't for us, it wouldn't have happened.