Italy dispatch: Voters reject judicial reform and thus preserve the uniform independence of the judiciary – JURIST Clio

On the 30th^Th of October 2025, the Italian Parliament approved a constitutional amendment intended to reorganize the judicial system. On the 22nd^nd and 23^approx In March 2026, Italy voted on the matter by resolution confirmatory referendum– a public vote to approve or reject the parliamentary amendment.

As JURIST reports, voters rejected the referendum on March 23, 2026, with around 53% of voters rejecting the proposed changes. The outcome reflected broader concerns about maintaining judicial independence, as critics argued that the reform risked exposing the judiciary to political influence.

Italy’s justice system is divided into three main parts: administrative courts, military courts and the ordinary judiciary. The ordinary judiciary handles most civil and criminal cases in accordance with the Italian Civil and Criminal Code. The referendum focused exclusively on this area and left administrative and military courts untouched.

Currently, in the ordinary judiciary, prosecutors investigate cases while judges make judgments. Both roles undergo the same public examination for election, are governed by the same council and can change positions within certain limits. Although the Justice is constitutionally independent according to Article 104 of Italian Law ConstitutionThere is no strict separation of powers between judges and prosecutors – a dynamic that was central to the referendum debate. The proposed reforms aimed to restructure the way these roles are managed and monitored.

This is why the referendum Suggestion This included the establishment of two Supreme Judicial Councils (one for judges and one for prosecutors), the selection of their members by lot, and the creation of a Supreme Disciplinary Court for ordinary judges. This built on that Cartabia reformwhich was already the case in 2022 limited The alternation between the role of judge and prosecutor.

Those who voted “yes”. claims that the constitutional amendment would ensure the impartiality of the judiciary and autonomy between the two branches and bring the judicial system into line with international standards. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government takes office at the beginning of January accused the judiciary, conflicts of interest and prejudice in various areas of law. The government of Prime Minister Meloni argued that a positive outcome of the referendum would improve accountability for such behavior.

Those who agree with “No”. worried that separating the two careers would open the door to political influence. Prosecutor Giuseppe Lombardo stated this on January 26th^Th January 2026, during a lecture at King’s College London. The lawyer stressed that, according to Article 101 of the Italian Constitution, judges are subject exclusively to the law. The same obligation also applies to prosecutors, as they do not have a separate role. For this reason, separating careers would make the judiciary vulnerable to political pressure.

Legal experts Gianluigi Cassandra and Ivan Galenda (links to be added) analyzed in depth the reasons for voting “yes” and “no” respectively. They also stressed the importance of Italians living abroad voting on constitutional amendments like this one.

What happened in the Italian legal space was a collision between two ideas of justice. One imagined a separation of powers, arguing that splitting the careers of judges and prosecutors would prevent conflicts of interest and bring Italy into line with international standards. The other emphasized the independence of the judiciary and warned that separating roles could expose prosecutors to political pressure – since both enjoy the same constitutional protection under Article 101. This applies to the Italian legal system inquisitorialThe independence of the judiciary has traditionally been valued more highly than strict separation. The referendum forced voters to decide which principle should guide the future of the Italian judiciary.

The opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our local correspondents and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.