Political 01:51 – 17/08/2019
Baghdad – Mawazine News
A legal expert explained the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court on the entry into force of Article 140 of the Constitution, pointing out that the time limits stipulated in the Constitution include the obligation on the bodies responsible for the implementation of these articles, pointing out that the withdrawal of any text of the Constitution requires an amendment in accordance with official mechanisms.
“The ruling issued by the Federal Supreme Court on the validity of Article (140) of the Constitution is true and binding on all authorities,” said Mohammed Sharif.
Sharif added that “the abolition of any article of the Constitution requires an amendment in accordance with the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution itself.”
He pointed out that “a number of questions are being asked about the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling on this article and the first of the timing of the issuance of this ruling, and why the judicial decision coincided with the political movement between the federal government and the Kurdistan region.”
Al-Sharif said, “The court did not issue its verdict on its own, but this came upon an explanatory request received from the House of Representatives dated (15/7/2019), and therefore became necessary for the judiciary to decide.”
He continued, “The timing must be asked by the interpreter, although the right of access to justice is guaranteed to everyone in accordance with Article (19 / III) of the Constitution, and at any time.”
He added, “The court issued its interpretative judgment a few days after receiving the request after it completed its study of all formal and substantive aspects with a view to issuing the verdict in it, on (28/7/2019).”
He stressed that “when the court issued the verdict was in accordance with Article (92 / second) of the Constitution, in accordance with its interpretative jurisdiction, which ruled in many judgments, including on (the age of the electoral cycle and the largest parliamentary bloc and the opposition bloc and the unity of Iraq and territorial integrity).” .
Al-Sharif stated that “ the explanatory request contained a clear inquiry which can be found in the form of provision No. (71 / Federal / 2019), which is ((kindly interpret the text of Article (140) of the Constitution as to whether or not it applies ..)).
Al-Sharif stressed that “the explanatory applicant, the House of Representatives, limited his request to know whether this article is still valid or not?”, And the court according to legal contexts is obliged to answer that question whenever the correct formal and objective conditions for the request for interpretation and otherwise will put itself before Responsibility to “(refrain from realizing the right))”.
Al-Sharif stated that “the pretext mentioned by the objectors in criticizing the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court is the existence of a time limit in Article (140) of the Constitution, is (31/12/2007) a maximum to implement them.”
He added that “resolving the issue requires a return to the philosophy of the existence of time limits in the constitutional articles, is that exceeding them is the birthplace of those articles.”
Sharif pointed out that “the examination of article (140) of the Constitution, paragraphs (first and second) shows that it begins with the words ((the executive authority takes steps)) … and ends with ((not later than the thirty-first of December in the year two thousand and seven) ). ”
He continued, “This period, as stated in the constitutional text, imposes an obligation on the executive authority to accomplish its task during that period and not to drop the article, that is, if the executive authority lags in the completion of this constitutional task will be subject to accountability in accordance with the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution.”
Sharif stressed that “the omission of an article in the Constitution means that we are making an amendment to it, and this amendment can be obtained only through the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution itself.”
He pointed out that “the constitutional legislator, if he wanted to exclude article (140) of the Constitution from the rules of amendment of the Constitution stipulated in its articles, to mention it explicitly, as his intention was clear that that period was designed to oblige the executive authority to a certain task, and that skipping it will make it vulnerable For accounting. ”
Al-Sharif stated, “The position of the Federal Supreme Court on this matter is not the first of its kind, but it went in the same position in the interpretation of Article (142) of the Constitution by virtue of the number (54 / Federal / 2017) issued on 21/5/2017 on the mechanisms of amendment the Constitution”.
He continued, “Article 142, which is also included in the transitional provisions and provides for time limits for amendments, but the court said in its interpretative ruling that that article also remains in force.”
He added, “The same position with respect to Article (137) of the Constitution, which talked about the formation of the Council of the Union (the second wing of the legislative authority), after the end of the first electoral cycle for the years (2006-2010), but the Federal Supreme Court ruled in many of its judgments This council, even though we are in the fourth electoral cycle now. ”
“The summary of the above shows us that exceeding the constitutional deadlines is not intended to drop its articles because this requires an amendment in accordance with the mechanisms set forth in the Constitution itself, but to determine the responsibility of the body that is responsible for implementing them and if they exceed them are held accountable in accordance with the constitutional contexts of the concerned authorities 29 / p