The Federal Supreme Court (Chapter VII - the right of legislation)





4/7/2017

A section of the observers signed a mistake when they wrote and gave positions and portrayed to the public opinion that the Federal Supreme Court has robbed the right of the House of Representatives to enact laws, and made them - according to what I think - the monopoly of the executive authority represented by the Council of Ministers or the Presidency of the Republic and the deputies only to approve.

It is necessary to go in this area until Article (60) of the Constitution, which came in the following text: "First: draft laws submitted by the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers; Second: the proposals of laws submitted by ten members of the House of Representatives, or one of its competent committees.

The Supreme Federal Court, when presented with a lawsuit in this regard resolved the controversy, and explicitly explained to the House of Representatives legislation of the laws directly, or the need to take the consent of other parties according to jurisdiction and consult with them before the legislation of the law was proposed in the Council.

When reading court decision No. (21) of the year 2015 we find that it was based on the proper application of the provisions of the Constitution, especially with regard to the provisions of Article (47) on the separation of powers as a principle defined by most constitutions of the world, especially with democratic systems.

In Iraq, the legislative authority exercises its functions and powers stipulated in Articles 60, 61, 62, 64 / I of the Constitution, foremost of which is the enactment of federal laws, as required by the public interest, provided that they comply with constitutional contexts.

These contexts have opened the hands of the House of Representatives to submit bills and legislation directly, except some of the restrictions mentioned by the constitutional judiciary, including those which arrange financial obligations to the executive authority were not included in their plans or budget without consulting with them and taking their consent, For this proposal is the law of the general budget of the country.

This restriction contradicts the principle of separation of powers and can be considered a denial of the principle of the independence of the judiciary provided for in Article (2) of the Constitution, 19 / I) of the Constitution that "the judiciary is independent and has no authority other than the law."

Otherwise, the legislature exercises its original competencies in which it finds itself in the interest of the public and within the scope of the Constitution.

For example, the case 21 / Federal / 2015 referred to as Enva, was to challenge the law on the replacement of members of the House of Representatives No. (6) for the year 2006, where the plaintiff was based on his appeal that the law was submitted by the House of Representatives and was approved on a proposed formula was not converted To the Council of Ministers or the Presidency of the Republic for the purpose of making it legitimate, but the Federal Supreme Court responded to this appeal and confirmed the right of the House of Representatives in the exercise of its original tasks to submit proposals and legislation in accordance with Article (61 / I) and acts of the provision of Article (49 / V) of the fact that the law challenged does not affect The principle of separation of powers and did not create financial effects added to the power of power Iveh does not constitute a dispute with the general political state does not affect the federal judiciary independence or functions.

• Legal affairs clerk

Link