Procedures for Adjudicating the Judicial Review Lawsuit on the Constitutionality of Legislation Before the Supreme Courts: (A Comparative Study)

Abstract

The procedures for adjudicating the judicial review lawsuit concerning the constitutionality of laws are considered among the important issues within the scope of constitutional judiciary, due to their direct impact on determining the effectiveness of reviewing the acts of the legislative authority and ensuring respect for the principle of constitutional supremacy. The research problem is represented in questioning the adequacy of the legal regulation of the procedures followed before constitutional courts in achieving a balance between the requirements of protecting the Constitution on the one hand and ensuring the stability of transactions and legal positions on the other hand, in addition to identifying the extent of differences in these procedures among comparative constitutional systems and the extent to which this affects the efficiency of judicial review.

The research adopted the descriptive analytical approach by describing the legal rules regulating the procedures for hearing constitutional lawsuits and analyzing the relevant constitutional and legislative texts as well as judicial rulings. It also relied on the comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences among certain comparative constitutional experiences represented by Iraq, Egypt, France, and the United States of America, with the aim of reaching a clearer understanding of the nature of these procedures and their role in achieving constitutional justice.

The study reached a number of conclusions, the most important of which is that the soundness of judicial review is not achieved merely by granting the court jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality of laws; rather, it requires the existence of clear and balanced procedures that ensure the prompt adjudication of the lawsuit while preserving the rights of litigants and the guarantees of litigation. It was also found that the differences in the methods of initiating constitutional lawsuits among legal systems affect the nature of the procedures followed before the court, and that the effectiveness of constitutional judgments is largely associated with the clarity of the rules governing the stages of hearing the lawsuit, issuing the judgment, and determining its legal effects. The study also demonstrated the need to develop certain procedures in line with the requirements of modern constitutional justice.