The Federal Court rejects a new lawsuit to dissolve the House of Representatives (document)

[yota691]

A new and strongly worded statement from the Federal Court

• Time: 07/09/2022 16:00:48
•  
• Reading: 910 times

  

{Political: Al Furat News} The Federal Supreme Court issued a strongly worded statement after rejecting the case for dissolving the House of Representatives.

In its statement, the court considered that “the failure to complete the formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all constitutional deadlines for the election of the president of the republic and the formation of the cabinet, and the failure of the legislative authority to carry out its constitutional duties, especially the adoption of the budget law as it is legally related to the people’s food, is a violation of the provisions of the constitution and a violation of the goal for which the existence of those the authorities".

She stressed, "All constitutional institutions, state institutions and parliamentary blocs must abide by the constitution and all its articles and foundations without selectivity or special interpretations and jurisprudence, as well as adherence to the legal and administrative contexts in force and emphasizing the unity of the state and the unity of policies drawn up in accordance with laws and regulations."

She explained that "the difference between state institutions or between parliamentary blocs is not resolved by imposing the other opinion, but through effective legislative, executive and judicial institutions, emphasizing the importance of work and participation in legislative and executive institutions, adherence to the legal powers of each authority, and non-interference in the affairs of institutions, authorities and ministries, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution."

The court noted that "the failure to complete the formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all constitutional periods and the failure of the legislative authority to fulfill its constitutional duties, especially the adoption of the budget law, is a violation of the constitutional purpose for which the legislative and executive authorities were established."

[yota691]

 

From 6 points .. The Federal Court issues a ruling regarding the dissolution of the Iraqi parliament

 2022-09-07 08:10

 

Shafaq News/ The Federal Supreme Court (the highest judicial authority in Iraq) announced on Wednesday that no authority in the country may "exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely", stressing at the same time that it is not within its jurisdiction to dissolve the Iraqi parliament.

And the court said in a statement today, that it has ruled on Case No. 132 and its Units / Federal / 2022

She also stated that she sees the following:

1. The members of the House of Representatives, after being elected, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.

2. The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is a violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.

3. The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is to dissolve the House when there are justifications for it.

4. The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.

5. The jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court is limited by Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and does not include the dissolution of Parliament.

6. The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of the dissolution of Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.

The statement clarified that the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the constitutional frameworks in a manner that ensures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.

And the Federal Court continued in its statement by saying that the general reality in the country is in great decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and significantly affected the standard of living of the people.

 

Nassar al-Rubaie, Secretary-General of the Sadrist bloc, had filed a lawsuit against the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to rule to dissolve the House of Representatives for its fifth session, and to oblige the President of the Republic to set a date for holding legislative elections in accordance with the provisions of Article 64/second of the Constitution.

The leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, had called on the Supreme Judicial Council to dissolve parliament within a period not exceeding the twentieth of this month, and assigning the President of the Republic to set a date for early elections, but the Council responded to al-Sadr's request to dissolve parliament, saying: "He does not have this authority." .

The content of the lawsuit deals with accusations of failing to elect a President of the Republic and violating the constitutional deadlines for forming the new government.

[yota691]

 

The first legal comment on the response of the Federal Court to the lawsuit to dissolve the Iraqi parliament

 

 2022-09-07 08:52

 

Shafaq News/ The legal expert, Amir Al-Daami, commented today, Wednesday, on the decision of the Federal Supreme Court to disband the Iraqi Parliament.

Al-Daami told Shafaq News Agency, "The decision of the Federal Court, today, is an achievement for the court, given that it applied the Iraqi constitution to the letter, and did not violate the constitution and did not stand above the law. Dissolving Parliament is not within the jurisdiction of the court, and this is a clear constitutional text."

He added that "the Federal Court has triumphed for the constitution and won for a law not to involve itself in the political equation, and the dissolution of Parliament is currently in accordance with Article (64 / first), meaning that Parliament has the power to dissolve itself only, not a second authority."

The Federal Supreme Court (the highest judicial authority in Iraq) had announced earlier today, that no authority in the country may "exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely", stressing at the same time that it is not within its jurisdiction to dissolve the Iraqi Council of Representatives. Its response to the Sadrist movement's suit in this regard.

Nassar al-Rubaie, Secretary-General of the Sadrist bloc, had filed a lawsuit against the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to rule to dissolve the House of Representatives for its fifth session, and to oblige the President of the Republic to set a date for holding legislative elections in accordance with the provisions of Article 64/second of the Constitution.

The leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, had called on the Supreme Judicial Council to dissolve parliament within a period not exceeding the twentieth of this month, and assigning the President of the Republic to set a date for early elections, but the Council responded to al-Sadr's request to dissolve parliament, saying: "He does not have this authority." .

The content of the lawsuit deals with accusations of failing to elect a President of the Republic and violating the constitutional deadlines for forming the new government.

[yota691]

Expert: The Resignations Of The Sadrist MPs Are A Constitutional Violation According To The Recent Federal Decision

07/09/2022

31

Earth News/ Legal expert Jamal Al-Asadi considered today, Wednesday, the resignation of the Sadrist MPs, a "constitutional violation", based on the recent decision of the Federal Court.

Al-Asadi said in a blog post that was followed by Earth News: “A new principle was stated in the Federal Court’s decision issued today 7/9/2022 in the case No. 132 and its units on the subject of rejecting the case for dissolving the House of Representatives, which is: that the members of the House of Representatives after their election do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather They represent the people, and therefore it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people as a whole.”

He continued, "This means that the resignations of the Sadrist movement's deputies are in violation of the constitutional texts, as they were submitted by the head of a political bloc and under the direction and order, and not from themselves, and this violates constitutional principles."

Today, Wednesday, the Federal Court rejected the decision to dissolve Parliament.

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and Earth News received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.

[yota691]

A legal expert reveals to "Dijla" efforts to file a lawsuit to explain Article 64

 

- 09-07-2022 04:48 PM - Number of readings: 2322

 

Lawyer and legal expert Ali Kamel said today, Wednesday, that the Federal Court recognized the necessity of dissolving Parliament through the word “penalty,” while revealing efforts to file a lawsuit requesting the interpretation of Article 64 of the Constitution.

Kamel told "Dijla", that "the constitutional violations devoted their efforts to weaken the state, and with the word of punishment, the Federal Court has recognized the necessity of dissolving the House of Representatives through Article 64," noting that "the Speaker of the House of Representatives repudiated his role by not inviting the representatives and respecting the legislative authority."

He added that "there are many international constitutions that allow the federal courts to dissolve the House of Representatives, and the constitutional path to end the breach of timing is to dissolve the parliament, but the key to the solution is not in the hands of the Federal Court."

Kamel added that "there are question marks about Article 64, and we will file a second lawsuit requesting interpretation, and we hope the Federal Court will be more clear in future lawsuits."

He pointed out, "We lack legislative competence because parliamentary work is lacking in legislative maturity," noting that "all the problems facing the elections and commission laws are created by the legislature."

He believed that "constitutional institutions that do not rule by the constitution and do not respect timings lose their legitimacy."

On the other hand, Kamel said, "Dealing with issues of leaks was long and the case against al-Maliki will receive more attention."

[yota691]

Deputy Describes The Decision Of The Federal Court To Dismiss The Case For Dissolving Parliament As “Legal Creativity”

09/07/2022

25

Earth News/ Today, Wednesday, Representative Alia Nassif described the Federal Court's decision to dismiss the case for dissolving Parliament as "legal creativity."
Nassif said in a tweet via Twitter, which was followed by Earth News: "The Federal Court rejected the case with a decision that is least said to be a legal innovation, and from two things: the first: - the parliament lost its legitimacy by exceeding the constitutional terms, meaning the terms are inevitable and not leaving tricks to the west. Second: - the failure of a member of the House of Representatives With its duties through the sessions of the House of Representatives towards the citizen, the Council loses its legitimacy, and the court cannot ignore an
existing text, drawing a mechanism for dissolving the Council. I mean, Council, do your duty and abide by it.”

And she added, "A judiciary that Burkutum is proud of."

[yota691]

The Federal Court shows its position on the delay in approving the federal budget

Policy

2022-09-07 | 08:47

 

 

6,528 views

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed, today, Wednesday, that the failure to pass the federal budget law is a violation of the provisions of the constitution and the goal for which the executive and legislative authorities were found.

The Federal Authority said in a statement received by Alsumaria News, “The failure to complete the formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all constitutional periods for electing the president of the republic and forming the cabinet, and the legislative authority not carrying out its constitutional duties, especially approving the budget law as it is legally related to the people’s food, is a violation of the provisions of the constitution and a violation of the goal that It was for him that those powers existed.”

 

 

 

 

 

She stressed, "All constitutional institutions, state institutions and parliamentary blocs adhere to the constitution and all its articles and foundations without selectivity or special interpretations and jurisprudence, as well as adherence to the legal and administrative contexts in force and emphasizing the unity of the state and the unity of policies drawn up in accordance with laws and regulations."

And she considered, "The difference between state institutions or between parliamentary blocs is not resolved by imposing the other opinion, but through effective legislative, executive and judicial institutions, emphasizing the importance of work and participation in legislative and executive institutions, adherence to the legal powers of each authority, and non-interference in the affairs of institutions, authorities and ministries, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution."

 

The court indicated, "The failure to complete the formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all constitutional periods and the failure of the legislative authority to fulfill its constitutional duties, especially the adoption of the budget law, is a violation of the constitutional purpose for which the legislative and executive authorities were established."

[keylime]

8 hours ago, yota691 said:

The Federal Court shows its position on the delay in approving the federal budget

Policy

2022-09-07 | 08:47

 

 

6,528 views

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed, today, Wednesday, that the failure to pass the federal budget law is a violation of the provisions of the constitution and the goal for which the executive and legislative authorities were found.

The Federal Authority said in a statement received by Alsumaria News, “The failure to complete the formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all constitutional periods for electing the president of the republic and forming the cabinet, and the legislative authority not carrying out its constitutional duties, especially approving the budget law as it is legally related to the people’s food, is a violation of the provisions of the constitution and a violation of the goal that It was for him that those powers existed.”

 

 

 

 

 

She stressed, "All constitutional institutions, state institutions and parliamentary blocs adhere to the constitution and all its articles and foundations without selectivity or special interpretations and jurisprudence, as well as adherence to the legal and administrative contexts in force and emphasizing the unity of the state and the unity of policies drawn up in accordance with laws and regulations."

And she considered, "The difference between state institutions or between parliamentary blocs is not resolved by imposing the other opinion, but through effective legislative, executive and judicial institutions, emphasizing the importance of work and participation in legislative and executive institutions, adherence to the legal powers of each authority, and non-interference in the affairs of institutions, authorities and ministries, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution."

 

The court indicated, "The failure to complete the formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all constitutional periods and the failure of the legislative authority to fulfill its constitutional duties, especially the adoption of the budget law, is a violation of the constitutional purpose for which the legislative and executive authorities were established."

And....

[yota691]

A new statement from the Federal Court regarding constitutional timings

2022.09.07 - 15:59

 

Baghdad - people   

On Wednesday, the Federal Court issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.   

  

 

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.   

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."   

  

On Wednesday, the Federal Court responded to the decision to dissolve Parliament.  

  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:     

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.    

  

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.    

  

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.    

  

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.    

  

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.    

  

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.    

  

  

  

The legal expert, Amir Al-Daami, predicted the content of the Federal Court's decision regarding the dissolution of Parliament.      

Al-Daami stated in a blog post, which was reviewed by “Nass” (September 7, 2022), that “the court will indicate, in the introduction to its decision, the failure of the Parliament to hold its sessions and the failure to adhere to the constitutional periods, which affects the constitutionality of the parliament.”      

  

He added, "which means his inability, and therefore the vote is to apply Article 64 of the constitution, and finally the case is rejected for lack of jurisdiction and interest."     

[yota691]

A “brief” comment from Ghayeb Al-Amiri after the federal decision to dismiss the case for dissolving Parliament

2022.09.07 - 16:13

 

Baghdad - people   

Today, Wednesday, the former MP and a leader in the Sadrist movement commented on the decision of the Federal Court regarding the case for dissolving Parliament.  

  

  

  

Al-Amiri wrote in a brief blog post followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), "He (Ibn Al-Dua'i) will not rule over us, whoever he is."  

  

  

  

  

Today, Wednesday, the Federal Court issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.  

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.     

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."     

  

The Federal Court received the decision to dissolve Parliament.  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:       

  

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.      

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.      

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.      

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.      

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.      

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.      

  

The legal expert, Amir Al-Daami, predicted the content of the Federal Court's decision regarding the dissolution of Parliament.      

  

Al-Daami stated in a blog post, which was reviewed by “Nass” (September 7, 2022), that “the court will indicate, in the introduction to its decision, the failure of the Parliament to hold its sessions and the failure to adhere to the constitutional periods, which affects the constitutionality of the parliament.”        

  

He added, "which means his inability, and therefore the vote is to apply Article 64 of the constitution, and finally the case is rejected for lack of jurisdiction and interest."      

[yota691]

Al-Shammari after the federal decision: We returned to Saddam to dissolve parliament politically

2022.09.07 - 16:30

 

Baghdad - people  

The head of the Center for Political Thinking, Ihsan Al-Shammari, commented, on Wednesday, regarding the Federal Court's decision regarding the dissolution of the House of Representatives.  

  

  

Al-Shammari said, in a brief post followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), that "returning to Saddam will dissolve parliament (politically)."  

  

  

  

The Federal Court, earlier, issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.   

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.     

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."     

  

Earlier, the Federal Court rejected the decision to dissolve Parliament.  

  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:      

  

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.      

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.      

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.      

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.      

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.      

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.      

  

The legal expert, Amir Al-Daami, predicted, earlier, the content of the Federal Court's decision regarding the case for dissolving Parliament.    

  

Al-Daami stated in a blog post, which was reviewed by “Nass” (September 7, 2022), that “the court will indicate, in the introduction to its decision, the failure of the Parliament to hold its sessions and the failure to adhere to the constitutional periods, which affects the constitutionality of the parliament.”        

  

He added, "which means his inability, and therefore the vote is to apply Article 64 of the constitution, and finally the case is rejected for lack of jurisdiction and interest." 

[yota691]

The first comment from Sabah Al-Saadi after responding to the lawsuit to dissolve Parliament

2022.09.07 - 16:31

 

Baghdad - people   

The leader of the Sadrist movement, Sabah Al-Saadi, commented, on Wednesday, regarding the Federal Court's response to the case for dissolving Parliament.  

  

  

  

Al-Saadi said, in a tweet on "Twitter" followed by "Nas" (September 7, 2022), "Quick looks at the decision to condemn the House of Representatives by the Federal Supreme Court No. 132 and its units... / Federal / 2022 on 7/9/2022 ":  

  

First: The resolution condemned the disruption of the Council through the Coordination Framework bloc and the blocs and independents who lined up with it in accordance with paragraph 3 of the text of the resolution above, and considered the failure of the Council members to perform their duties as a reason for (disrupting the interests of the people and threatening their safety and the integrity of the country completely.   

  

Second: The Federal Supreme Court, in its decision mentioned in Paragraph 3, also specified that the penalty for disrupting the Council for the interests of the people and threatening their safety and the safety of the country is (dissolving the Council), and this obstruction cannot continue indefinitely.  

  

Third: The Federal Supreme Court specified the (dissolution of the Council) in accordance with Article (64), which is the presidents of the republic and the government as one of the two means, through its explanation in paragraph 3 of the same decision above, and that it is (ministerial dissolution) through the approval of the President of the Republic on a request for dissolution.  

  

Fourth: With this condemnation from the Federal Court and the reasoning that there is a threat to the safety of the people and the country by the continuation of this council, the reality is imposed on the presidents of the republic and the government (by dissolving the council) based on this condemnation by the Constitutional Court.”  

  

  

  

And commented the former deputy and a leader in the Sadrist movement earlier, on the decision of the Federal Court regarding the lawsuit to dissolve parliament.  

  

Al-Amiri wrote in a brief blog post followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), "He (Ibn Al-Dua'i) will not rule over us, whoever he is."    

  

  

  

Earlier, the head of the Center for Political Thinking, Ihsan Al-Shammari, commented on the Federal Court's decision regarding the dissolution of the House of Representatives.  

  

Al-Shammari said, in a brief post followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), that "returning to Saddam will dissolve parliament (politically)."    

  

  

  

The Federal Court, earlier, issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.   

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.       

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."       

  

Earlier, the Federal Court rejected the decision to dissolve Parliament.   

  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:        

  

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.        

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.        

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.        

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.        

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.        

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.        

  

The legal expert, Amir Al-Daami, predicted, earlier, the content of the Federal Court's decision regarding the case for dissolving Parliament.    

  

Al-Daami stated in a blog post, which was reviewed by “Nass” (September 7, 2022), that “the court will indicate, in the introduction to its decision, the failure of the Parliament to hold its sessions and the failure to adhere to the constitutional periods, which affects the constitutionality of the parliament.”          

  

He added, "which means his inability, and therefore the vote is to apply Article 64 of the constitution, and finally the case is rejected for lack of jurisdiction and interest." 

[yota691]

'Nothing settled'

Hoshyar Zebari: After the federal decision, politicians have only two steps

2022.09.07 - 20:13

 

Baghdad - people  

The leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Hoshyar Zebari, commented today, Wednesday, on the recent decision of the Federal Court regarding the dismissal of the case regarding the dissolution of the House of Representatives.  

  

  

  

Zebari said in a blog post followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), that "after the Federal Court's decision today, which did not heal a wound and did not resolve a matter, politicians have practically no choice but to understand the return of the winning Sadrist movement's deputies to Parliament with the legal ground, and the framework withdrew its candidate. Council of Ministers to dismantle the crisis first.  

  

And he added, "What is your fingernail that rubs against your skin, O absent parliament?"  

  

  

  

Today, Wednesday, the Federal Court issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.  

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.     

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."     

  

The Federal Court received the decision to dissolve Parliament.  

  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:  

  

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.      

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.      

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.      

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.      

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.      

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.      

  

The legal expert, Amir Al-Daami, predicted the content of the Federal Court's decision regarding the dissolution of Parliament.      

  

Al-Daami stated in a blog post, which was reviewed by “Nass” (September 7, 2022), that “the court will indicate, in the introduction to its decision, the failure of the Parliament to hold its sessions and the failure to adhere to the constitutional periods, which affects the constitutionality of the parliament.”        

  

He added, "which means his inability, and therefore the vote is to apply Article 64 of the constitution, and finally the case is rejected for lack of jurisdiction and interest."     

[yota691]

"balanced appointment"

Al-Fath regarding the response to the lawsuit to dissolve Parliament: The constitutional path now is to form the government

2022.09.07 - 21:14

 

Baghdad - people   

Today, Wednesday, the Al-Fateh Alliance considered that the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss the case for dissolving the House of Representatives is “balanced.”  

  

  

The leader of the coalition, Ghazanfar al-Batekh, said in an interview with colleague Saadoun Mohsen Damad, followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), that "the decision to reject the case for dissolving the House of Representatives was balanced from a constitutional and legal point of view," noting that "the court assigned the House of Representatives to dissolve itself." .  

  

He added, "We understood from the text of the resolution that there is another pressure card on the House of Representatives to dissolve itself, and the constitutional path now is to go towards forming a government, and if there is an excess of the constitutional deadlines, pressure can be made in other tracks."  

  

And he stated, "One of the options before us now is to go towards an agreement to return to parliament sessions and elect a president and ministers after agreeing with the current, and to form a permanent constitutional government, but by political agreement, it is a transitional government, and then a new election date is set."  

  

He continued, "The framework is ready for dialogue with the Sadrist movement if the main axis is the personality of the prime minister, and our problem now is to form a transitional government."  

  

Today, Wednesday, the Federal Court issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.  

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.       

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."       

  

The Federal Court received the decision to dissolve Parliament.   

  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:    

  

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.        

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.        

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.        

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.        

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.        

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.    

[yota691]

Following the federal decision

Al-Maliki's coalition: A parliamentary session must be held.. These are the steps of the framework after the forty

2022.09.07 - 22:23

 

Baghdad - people   

Today, Wednesday, a member of the House of Representatives of the State of Law coalition, Alia Nassif, revealed the steps of the coordination framework after the Arbaeen visit, following the decision to reject the case for dissolving Parliament.  

  

  

Nassif said in an interview with her colleague Ahmed Mulla Talal, followed by "Nass" (September 7, 2022), "We have constitutional entitlements, and the court noted that any authority, whether legislative or executive, when it exceeds the constitutional periods loses its legitimacy," indicating that "the next scenario will be represented by a contract A parliamentary session to elect a president and assign a prime minister after the Arbaeen visit.  

  

She added that "the convening of the House of Representatives is inevitable and needs the wishes of the framework and the current, amending the electoral law and changing the Electoral Commission," noting that "the UN envoy called on the Iraqi political forces to hold a session and form a government."  

  

And she continued, "The House of Representatives will hold its next session, in principle, on September 20, 2022, after the Arbaeen visit, and everyone will attend."  

  

Earlier, the Al-Fateh Alliance considered that the Federal Court's decision to dismiss the case for dissolving the House of Representatives was "balanced."  

  

The leader of the coalition, Ghazanfar al-Batekh, said in an interview with colleague Saadoun Mohsen Damad, which was followed by “Nas” (September 7, 2022), that “the decision to reject the case for dissolving the House of Representatives was balanced from a constitutional and legal point of view,” noting that “the court entrusted the House of Representatives to dissolve itself.” ".    

  

He added, "We understood from the text of the resolution that there is another pressure card on the House of Representatives to dissolve itself, and the constitutional path now is to go towards forming a government, and if there is an excess of the constitutional deadlines, pressure can be made in other tracks."    

  

Today, Wednesday, the Federal Court issued a clarification regarding its decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.  

  

And the court stated in a statement that “Nass” received a copy of it (September 7, 2022), that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the constitution in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and to protect public rights and freedoms in accordance with the frameworks Constitutional law in a way that secures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.         

  

She added that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."         

  

The Federal Court received the decision to dissolve Parliament.   

  

According to a statement published by the court after the session, and "Nas" received a copy of it, (September 7, 2022), it considers:      

  

1- The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the people’s interest, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people completely.          

  

2- The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.          

  

3- The penalty imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is the dissolution of the House when there are justifications for it.          

  

4- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.          

  

5- The competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.          

  

6- The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.        

[yota691]

'It was not a victory for the tire'

Hezbollah newspaper: The federal decision is half a gain for the movement, and an attempt to invest in it will ignite new confrontations

2022.09.08 - 10:33

 

Baghdad - people  

On Thursday, the Lebanese newspaper, Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hezbollah, described the Iraqi Federal Court's decision to dismiss the case for dissolving parliament as "half a setback for the movement", while noting that it "does not represent a victory for the coordination framework."  

  

  

  

The newspaper said in a report followed by "Nass" (September 8, 2022), that "the court's decision did not represent a victory for the opponents of the 'coordinating framework'," noting that "any move by the framework towards holding a parliamentary session and forming a government may re-ignite the confrontation that could have been put down." before it developed into a Shiite-Shiite fight.  

  

Following is the text of the report:  

  

After the Federal Supreme Court’s decision to reject the Sadrist movement’s suit to dissolve the House of Representatives, which it justified by its lack of jurisdiction, the wait will inevitably move to another date with the court, regarding a no less important decision, which is scheduled to be issued on the 28th of this month, regarding the challenge to the validity of the acceptance of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Representatives, Muhammad al-Halbousi, the resignation of the 73 deputies of the Sadrist bloc from the parliament last June, without submitting it to a parliamentary vote. Although it is unreasonable for the Sadrist movement to challenge the acceptance of the voluntary resignation of its deputies under the guidance of their leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, the movement may bet that the court’s decision in this regard will open for it the way to retract the resignation, which it seems certain that it was wrong. , which was suggested by the statements of some of his leaders who considered that al-Halbousi's decision to accept it was unconstitutional.  

  

The court referred the issue of dissolving Parliament to Article 64 of the Constitution, which states that the dissolution is permissible in one of two ways: the first is a request from the Prime Minister approved by the President of the Republic, and this is not possible now because the government is a caretaker government and the President of the Republic has expired; The second is a request by one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, provided that the House votes on that by a simple majority.  

  

Although the Sadrists hold 73 out of 329 seats, representing less than a quarter of the parliament’s members, the second method seems to be the most suitable for them, as they may be able to persuade other blocs to join them in seeking and voting for a solution, if they promise to support it in the elections that The solution will follow, given the popular strength of the current.  

  

Although the court's decision came as a result not in the Sadrists' interest, it reflected their need to abide by legal texts, more than it reflected a rejection of the justifications provided by the Sadrist movement for the case.  

  

The ruling stressed that the members of the House of Representatives after their election do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people, and therefore it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the interest of the people, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people in its entirety. Adding that the incomplete formation of the executive authority despite exceeding all the constitutional deadlines for the election of the president of the republic and the formation of the cabinet, and the failure of the legislative authority to carry out its constitutional duties, especially approving the budget law, as it is legally related to the people’s food, is a violation of the provisions of the constitution and a violation of the goal for which those powers were established .  

  

Commenting on the court’s decision, the leader in the coordination framework, Abdul-Hussein Al-Zalmi, says that the response of the case was expected by most legal experts, although some were counting on that it would rule the case according to the interest, not according to the law, and some expected that it would be balanced or Compromise or submit to pressure, but the court exercised its constitutional role with all professionalism and courage, and issued its ruling in accordance with the constitution and in the public interest that requires the presence of a parliament that paves the way for the implementation of the constitutional benefits demanded by some, including early elections, as well as the need for a permanent government granted by Parliament.  

  

Al-Zalmi added that the decision demonstrated at the same time the ability of the judiciary to establish the principle of separation of powers, which other authorities should have adhered to. Therefore, its decision was a responsible one that demonstrated the judiciary’s pioneering role in preserving the country’s supreme interests.”  

  

On the other hand, political science professor Ali al-Jubouri, who is close to the Sadrist movement, says that the decision was expected, and the court put the ball in the court of political forces. Representatives who represent the Iraqi people are supposed when matters reach a state of crisis and political closure to go to Article 64 and dissolve parliament, And they do not throw the ball at it, because the law and statute of the Federal Court do not allow it to dissolve Parliament, and therefore we believe that the court has put the political forces in an unenviable position.  

  

Al-Jubouri said that the political forces should reconvene and resort to in-depth and productive dialogue, not to deaf dialogue that does not lead to results like the previous dialogues.  

  

He believed that there are regional, internal and even international pressures in the direction of reaching a solution. I think that the US Assistant Secretary of State, which called for a solution, and the efforts of the international organization, in the presence of Ms. Blackshart, is pushing towards the formation of a government acceptable to all parties, including the Sadrist movement. Therefore, we believe that the court's decision, although it appeared to many Iraqis that it was not new, but what is new in it is putting the political forces before their responsibilities in any stumbles and perhaps other setbacks in the Iraqi situation.  

[yota691]

Abu Kellal: Parliament must end its suspension in order to complete the constitutional entitlements

• Time: 07/09/2022 18:46:36
•  
• Reading: 936 times

  

{Politics: Al Furat News} A member of the Political Bureau of the National Wisdom Movement, Baligh Abu Kel, counted the Federal Court's decision regarding the dissolution of Parliament obligating the House of Representatives to end its suspension to complete the constitutional entitlements.

 

Abu Kellal said, in a tweet on Twitter, that: “After the Federal Court’s decision to dissolve Parliament, it has become imperative for Parliament to end its suspension in order to complete the constitutional entitlements to choose (a president and a new government), amend the electoral law, change the commission, approve the budget, and set a date for early elections in order to People's lives are stabilized and we have enough of useless disagreements."

On Wednesday, the Federal Supreme Court formally rejected the case for dissolving the House of Representatives.
In the light of its decision, the Federal Supreme Court held that the members of the House of Representatives after their election do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people, and therefore it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the interest of the people, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people fully.

[yota691]

Cougar: Parliament must convene after the federal response to the lawsuit to dissolve it

• Time: 09/07/2022 19:57:26
•  
• Reading: 1,417 times

  

{Politics: Al Furat News} A member of the Parliamentary Finance Committee commented on the Federal Court's decision to dismiss the case for dissolving Parliament, saying that "it has become necessary to hold Parliament sessions."

 

Jamal Cougar told Al-Furat News that: "After the Federal Supreme Court's decision today to dismiss the case for dissolving Parliament, it has become the duty of the House of Representatives to repeat its work and hold its sessions."
He pointed out, "The committee's request for the next government to expedite the preparation of the budget law and send it to the House of Representatives for the purpose of legislation."
"It is not possible to start any work related to the general budget for the year 2023 unless a government with full powers is formed," Cougar said.
On Wednesday, the Federal Supreme Court formally rejected the case for dissolving the House of Representatives.
In the light of its decision, the Federal Supreme Court held that the members of the House of Representatives after their election do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people, and therefore it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the interest of the people, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the safety of the people fully.
She also stressed, that the stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is a violation of the constitution and a demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens.
The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the competencies of the Federal Supreme Court are specified under Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and do not include the dissolution of Parliament.

From: Raghad Daham

[yota691]

Al-Abadi calls for a political agreement that includes dissolving parliament and holding early elections

• Time: 07/09/2022 23:11:18
•  
• Reading: 2,977 times

  

{Political: Al-Furat News} The head of the victory coalition, Haider Al-Abadi, called for the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

Al-Abadi said in a tweet on Twitter: "After the decision of the Federal Court, I call for submitting an initiative based on Article 64 of the Constitution, and within a scheduled political agreement that includes early elections, their laws and institutions, under the supervision of a government with full powers, and the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
" He pointed out that "order, stability, peace and development High national priorities, which are in the interest of all.

[Officiallytook]

just get it done already

[yota691]

 

Parliamentary: The recent Federal Court decision implicitly convicted Al-Halbousi of perjury

 

 2022-09-08 03:22

 

Shafaq News/ The independent member of the House of Representatives, Basem Khashan, considered on Thursday that the recent Federal Supreme Court decision implicitly condemned Parliament Speaker Muhammad al-Halbousi for suspending the legislative sessions of the Council.

Khashan said in a post on the social networking sites "Facebook", "The recent decision of the Federal Court implicitly condemned the Speaker of the Council of perjury and violation of the Constitution because he suspended the sessions of the Council by an individual decision, and disrupted its work."

The Federal Supreme Court (the highest judicial authority in Iraq) had announced earlier today, that no authority in the country may "exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely", stressing at the same time that it is not within its competence to dissolve the Iraqi parliament, in Its response to the Sadrist movement's suit in this regard.

Nassar al-Rubaie, Secretary-General of the Sadrist bloc, had filed a lawsuit against the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to rule to dissolve the House of Representatives for its fifth session, and to oblige the President of the Republic to set a date for holding legislative elections in accordance with the provisions of Article 64/second of the Constitution.

The leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, had called on the Supreme Judicial Council to dissolve parliament within a period not exceeding the twentieth of this month, and assigning the President of the Republic to set a date for early elections, but the Council responded to al-Sadr's request to dissolve parliament, saying: "He does not have this authority." .

The content of the lawsuit deals with accusations of failing to elect a President of the Republic and violating the constitutional deadlines for forming the new government.

[yota691]

After the decision of the Federal Court .. Will Article 64 succeed in resolving the matter of dissolving Parliament?

Sumerian special

2022-09-08 | 07:22

Source:

Alsumaria news

 

4,335 views

 

 

Alsumaria News - Politics

After the Federal Court announced its decision regarding the dissolution of the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the rejection of the lawsuit submitted by the Sadrist bloc, the political, legal and popular circles were preoccupied with other ways to dissolve the current parliament, namely Article 64 of the Iraqi constitution, which is capable of doing so, according to two jurists.

After the

political paralysis that struck Iraq after the early October 2021 elections, political circles were resentful due to the delay in forming the government, which prompted the Sadrist bloc, under the direct direction of the “Minister of Sadr,” to file a lawsuit against the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for ruling By dissolving the House of Representatives for its fifth session, and obliging the President of the Republic to set a date for holding legislative elections in accordance with the provisions of Article 64/second of the Constitution.

 

*

The Federal Respondent After a number of sessions and postponements, the Federal Court issued on 7/9/2022 its decision to dismiss the case for dissolving Parliament and confirmed that no authority in the country may “exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely,” stressing also that “it is not within its jurisdiction to dissolve the parliament.” Iraqi Representatives.

* Political call

After the Federal Court responded to the Sadrist bloc’s lawsuit, the head of the victory coalition, Haider al-Abadi, called for an initiative based on Article 64 of the Constitution, and within a scheduled political agreement that includes early elections, their laws and institutions, under the supervision of a government with full powers, and the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

 

* Legal opinion

In the same context, legal expert Safa Al-Lami confirmed that Article 64, first and second of the Iraqi constitution, clearly defined the mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives.
Al-Lami said in an interview with Alsumaria, "The Federal Court is not within its competence to dissolve the Iraqi parliament and does not have the authority to dissolve parliament. Rather, Article 64 first and second of the Iraqi constitution clearly defines the mechanism for dissolving parliament, and therefore the Federal Court cannot rule to dissolve parliament directly, but rather It has the authority to rule the continuation of Parliament’s work unconstitutional and to give recommendations about violations and abuses of the articles of the Iraqi constitution and the constitutional terms, and thus makes the Parliament lose its constitutional legitimacy due to its obstruction of a large part of the articles of the constitution.

 

He added, "In the recommendations of the Federal Court yesterday, a clear condemnation of Parliament for violating the constitutional terms, and in the text of the phrase, "Stop ignoring the legal periods.
" Constitutionalism," noting that "subduing members of the Iraqi parliament to the heads of their blocs is a political custom that is against the law."

 

The legal expert pointed out that "the recommendations of the Federal Court yesterday are an implicit message of the necessity of dissolving the parliament due to the loss of its legitimacy and exceeding more than once the constitutional terms in the Iraqi constitution, meaning that any work that is arranged in the future by the Iraqi parliament will be challenged and will become illegal and what is built." It is false, it is false.”

* The text of Article 64

First: The Council of Representatives is dissolved, by an absolute majority of its members, at the request of one-third of its members, or a request from the Prime Minister and with the approval of the President of the Republic, and the Council may not be dissolved during the period of questioning the Prime Minister.

Second: The President of the Republic, upon the dissolution of the House of Representatives, calls for general elections in the country within a maximum period of sixty days from the date of the dissolution, and in this case the Council of Ministers is considered resigned and continues to run daily affairs.

Yesterday, the Federal Court decided to reject the lawsuit filed regarding the dissolution of Parliament.

In a statement received by Alsumaria News, the court said, "The Federal Supreme Court rules on lawsuit No. 132 and its units / Federal / 2022."

She added that "the Federal Supreme Court considers:

1. The members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people, and therefore it was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the interest of the people, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and security. The entire people

2. The stability of the political process in Iraq requires everyone to abide by the provisions of the Constitution and not to exceed it, and no authority may continue to exceed the constitutional periods indefinitely, because this is in violation of the Constitution and the demolition of the entire political process and a threat to the security of the country and citizens

. What is imposed on the House of Representatives for not carrying out its constitutional duties is to dissolve the House when there are justifications for it.

4. The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has drawn up the constitutional mechanism for dissolving the House of Representatives in accordance with the provisions of Article (64/First) thereof.

5. The jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court is limited by Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law and does not include the dissolution of Parliament.
6. The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq of 2005 did not overlook the regulation of the provisions of dissolving Parliament, and therefore there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.”

The court indicated that “the purpose of the formation of the federal authorities is for the purpose of implementing what the constitution came with in accordance with the powers of each authority in order to guarantee the basic principles on which the constitution is based and the protection of public rights and freedoms in accordance with the constitutional frameworks in a manner that ensures the preservation of civil peace and the unity of the country.

She explained that "the general reality in the country is in a significant decline, whether at the service level or at the level of the spread of financial and administrative corruption, which has greatly affected the citizen's confidence in state institutions and greatly affected the standard of living of the people."

*Conclusion

It is clear from the experts’ opinion on the law, and the Federal Court’s response to the parliament’s dissolution lawsuit, that the latter sent clear and explicit messages to the political blocs and to the parliament’s presidency that they should stop taking advantage of the constitutional periods and not be subject to the heads of the blocs, with the court confirming that parliament can only be dissolved by Article 64 mentioned above. Is it resorted to to resolve the matter?

 

 

 

[yota691]

Video: The Federal Court rejects the case for dissolving Parliament and confirms: Our powers are limited

Sumerian special

2022-09-08 | 02:50

 

 

Source:

Sumerian

 

329 views

 

 

The Federal Court rejected the case for dissolving the House of Representatives, while noting that the penalty imposed on Parliament when it fails to perform its constitutional duties is to dissolve the House when its justifications exist. It was necessary for them to work to achieve what they were elected for, which is the interest of the people, not to be a reason to obstruct their interests and threaten their safety and the integrity of the country as a whole.

Due to lack of jurisdiction, the Federal Court rejects the case for dissolving Parliament because it does not have the authority to dissolve, to throw the ball back into the court of Parliament through constitutional mechanisms by submitting a third of the members of the House of Representatives a request for dissolution, and then the majority vote.

 

 

 

 

 

The reasons for dismissing the case, as explained by the court, are that the Iraqi constitution drew up a constitutional mechanism for dissolving the parliament in accordance with the provisions of Article sixty-four, first, in addition to the fact that the constitution also did not neglect the regulation of the provisions of the dissolution of the House of Representatives, so there is no room for applying the theory of constitutional omission.

In its position on Parliament in its fifth session, the court affirms that the members of the House of Representatives, after their election, do not represent themselves or their political blocs, but rather the people. Therefore, it was necessary to achieve the interests of their voters, not to be a reason to obstruct the interests of the country and threaten the safety of its people.

 

After the court ended a long chapter of controversy and disagreement, observers see that the scene has two paths: the first is to hold a parliamentary session to complete the remaining electoral benefits, or to return to the street, and this will become clear in the coming days.

[ronscarpa]

Thanks Yota ... a good article..!

[HowieC]