اخبار سوريا اليوم – وطن نيوز
سوريا اليوم – اخبار سوريا عاجل
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-07-15 17:06:00
The Supreme Constitutional Court in Syria stands out as an indispensable cornerstone in formulating the features of the transitional phase, as it was given a balanced advisory role, represented by “expressing an opinion” at the request of the President of the Republic or the Speaker of the People’s Assembly, which makes it a “constitutional house of expertise” that the legislator can consult to ensure the quality of texts before they are born, without robbing Parliament of its inherent right to legislate and formulate decisions. While during the era of the previous regime, this court was a political tool par excellence, and its primary function was to give “formal” legitimacy to the presidential dictatorship, pass laws, and confirm election results, the current court was born with a completely different vision, moving away in its transitional phase from resolving political balances and electoral supervision, to focus its efforts entirely on engineering the legislative structure, protecting rights, and moving from the stage of “judicial authority” to the stage of “independent constitutional judiciary authority.” The Supreme Constitutional Courts in all countries of the world stand as a bulwark that protects the people’s most valuable possession, their constitutional document, and protects it from turning into ink on paper under the weight of fleeting political interests. These courts are considered the guardian that monitors the lines of contact between the three authorities. They prevent Parliament from encroaching on legislation, and restrain the executive authority from tyranny by decision-making. In every established democratic system, they represent the safety valve that ensures that the state and its institutions remain subject to the law, transforming the constitution from mere rigid texts into a living shield that protects public rights and freedoms. Dismantling the tangle of constitutional powers. The text on the establishment of the Supreme Constitutional Court came under the chapter on the authorities and the state, in Article 47 of the “Constitutional Declaration” document. 1- “The existing Supreme Constitutional Court shall be dissolved and a new Supreme Constitutional Court shall be established. 2- The Supreme Constitutional Court shall consist of seven members nominated by the President of the Republic who are of integrity, competence, and experience, and its work mechanism and powers shall be regulated by law.” While the Syrian President issued Legislative Decree “149” this year appointing the President and members of the Supreme Constitutional Court, who took the constitutional oath, which links the court to the Constitutional Declaration by stipulating that the President and members of the Court must respect the Constitutional Declaration. The nascent Supreme Constitutional Court is the focus of this file prepared by Enab Baladi, to review the limits of its jurisdictions and tasks and its relationship with the legislative (the Presidency of the Republic and the People’s Assembly) and the executive authorities, and to explain the interactions in its work, and its discretionary authority over texts and legislation, whether in the process of legislation, or issued by the Syrian President, since the fall of the previous regime until today. Speaking to Enab Baladi, Dr. Ahmed Al-Qirbi, a member of the drafting committee for drafting the Constitutional Declaration, reassured that the Supreme Constitutional Court will in no way replace the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the new Syrian People’s Assembly. Opinion, not guardianship: The limits of the advisory role of the Constitutional Court. Dr. Al-Qirbi categorically denied that there is an intention in the new Syrian People’s Assembly to abolish the Committee for Constitutional and Legislative Affairs, because the Supreme Constitutional Court will not replace this committee with its tasks and powers. He said that the Supreme Constitutional Court, under Article Four (second and third paragraphs) of the decree defining the duties of the court, represents an “optional, discretionary authority” for the President of the Republic with regard to draft laws, and for the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the People’s Assembly together with regard to proposed laws. Accordingly, this jurisdiction does not in any way replace the work of the existing Constitutional and Legislative Committee within Parliament, and this is the first aspect of the issue. The second aspect, according to Al-Qirbi, is that the Legislative Committee is considered an integral part of the legislative authority, while the Supreme Constitutional Court represents part of the judicial authority (specifically the constitutional judiciary), which establishes a fundamental difference between the nature of their work. Moreover, the public law professor confirms that the opinion of the Legislative Committee is mostly subject to the discretion of the People’s Assembly and its final decision, which is the only similarity between it and the court in this context, as the expression of an opinion by the Constitutional Court is legally understood as a non-binding advisory opinion, even if it is issued by the highest constitutional judicial body. What is the path to legislative instruments? In response to a question about whether all draft laws and decrees will be presented to the Supreme Constitutional Court before referring them to the People’s Assembly, Al-Qirbi explained that referring draft laws to the Supreme Constitutional Court is subject to the absolute discretion of the President of the Republic. The procedural sequence is that the draft law is first prepared by the government (the executive authority), then it is referred to the Presidency of the Republic, and then the Presidency of the Republic refers it to the People’s Assembly. At this stage, the President of the Republic has two options: either to refer the project directly to Parliament without submitting it to the Supreme Constitutional Court, which is very possible and legally possible. Or refer it to the Supreme Constitutional Court to express an opinion on it. Here, the opinion is advisory and non-binding. It is possible for the Constitutional Court to conclude that the draft law is compatible with the Constitution, while the President of the Republic or the People’s Assembly sees otherwise, as long as we are talking about an “advisory opinion” and not a binding judicial ruling issued under Article 1, which concerns applicable laws and not draft laws. So, the established hierarchy begins with the arrival of the law proposal from the government to the President of the Republic, who refers it either directly to Parliament, or to the Constitutional Court to seek its opinion first and then refer it to Parliament. After that, Parliament has absolute freedom to take the opinion of the Constitutional Court or not to take it, says Dr. Al-Qirbi, which means that referring draft laws to the Court is not a mandatory stage or a compulsory passage before presenting it to Parliament. What about the decrees and laws issued since the liberation? “There is no clear legal text requiring the decrees issued to be presented to the Supreme Constitutional Court,” confirms Dr. Al-Qirbi. He says, “If we look closely at the first paragraph of Article Four, we find that it stipulates ‘deciding on the constitutionality of laws and regulations,’ without explicitly mentioning the decrees. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the decrees issued since the date of the issuance of the Constitutional Declaration until now will be presented to the Supreme Constitutional Court, unless a specific mechanism is approved to decide on the constitutionality of laws.” And the decrees, according to which it is agreed to present them. However, at the present time, and under the current decree, there is no text obligating the presentation of these decrees to the court, and the legal expert stresses that this matter is in fact subject to the discretionary authority of the People’s Assembly, given that the text of the Constitutional Declaration was silent on this issue and did not provide an explicit ruling regarding it, but it falls under the issues left to the discretionary authority of the Council. However, in implementation of the principle of strengthening constitutional legitimacy and the rule of law, Most of these decrees issued fall within the inherent legislative jurisdiction of Parliament (the People’s Assembly), so the best and most appropriate is to refer them to Parliament for approval. However, Parliament still has the right not to demand their referral, according to Al-Qirbi, in order to avoid entering into legal complications that may arise from reconsidering these laws, and what may result from their approval, amendment, or even repeal. The court’s opinion is not binding, and the People’s Assembly does not hold the president accountable. Regarding the phrase “expressing an opinion” that was mentioned in the Supreme Constitutional Tasks Decree, and whether the court’s opinion is binding on the legislative and executive authorities, Dr. Al-Qirbi confirms that the phrase “expressing an opinion” means, from a legal and practical standpoint, providing a purely advisory opinion and not a binding opinion, that is, it is an opinion that does not restrict the People’s Assembly or the Presidency of the Republic. If the Syrian legislator had aimed to oblige, the text in the decree would have included the phrase “deciding on the constitutionality of draft laws” instead of the phrase “expressing an opinion.” Dr. Ahmed Al-Qirbi explains that the bylaws of the People’s Assembly are the legal instrument concerned with regulating the detailed relationship between Parliament, the Presidency of the Republic, and the executive authority. However, the relationship with the Supreme Constitutional Court is different, because the court is an independent judicial authority, whose primary mission under the Constitutional Declaration is to monitor the constitutionality of laws and ensure that legislation issued by the People’s Assembly is consistent with the provisions of the Constitutional Declaration. Therefore, Al-Qirbi says, there is no interference or assault by the Constitutional Court on the powers of Parliament or on its internal regulations, whose role is limited to regulating the internal work of the Council and its relationship with the executive authority. As for issues related to holding the President of the Republic accountable or withholding confidence from the government, these tools and mechanisms do not exist at all under the current constitutional declaration that adopts the “presidential system,” as there are no parliamentary mechanisms in such systems for questioning or withholding confidence from ministers, let alone the President of the Republic. On the other hand, Dr. Al-Qirbi explains that the President of the Republic, in turn, does not have the constitutional authority to dissolve Parliament, which establishes a strict separation of powers. From the President and Members of the Supreme Constitutional Court According to the text of the presidential decree published by the Syrian News Agency (SANA), on July 7, the Supreme Constitutional Court is headed by Dr. Issam Khaled Al-Khalif, and it also consists of six members, in addition to Al-Khalif. Al-Khalif holds the position of Vice President of the Central Oversight and Inspection Authority in Syria, which is concerned with monitoring and inspecting government institutions to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, improving the level of services provided to citizens, and enhancing confidence in government institutions. The decree specified the members of the Constitutional Court as follows: Judge Counselor Khairallah Nadim Ghannoum. Judge Counselor Muhammad Mustafa Subei. Judge Counselor Iman Antoine Nouri. Dr. Ismail Hammadi Al-Khalfan. Dr. Rayan Hassan Kahilan. Lawyer Mr. Arif Ahmed Al-Shaal. What are the tasks of the Supreme Constitutional Court? Article 4 of the aforementioned decree explains the basic tasks that the Supreme Constitutional Court undertakes (pending the issuance of the law regulating its work mechanism and powers), which are: monitoring the constitutionality of laws and regulations. Expressing an opinion on the constitutionality of draft laws, at the request of the President of the Republic. Expressing an opinion on the constitutionality of proposed laws, upon the request of the President of the Republic or the Speaker of the People’s Assembly. Interpreting the texts of the Constitutional Declaration, at the request of the President of the Republic or the Speaker of the People’s Assembly. The President and members of the Supreme Constitutional Court, before assuming their duties, take the following constitutional oath before the President of the Republic: “I swear by God Almighty to respect the Constitutional Declaration and to carry out my duty honestly and sincerely.” The formation of the Supreme Constitutional Court comes in parallel with the start of the People’s Assembly’s first session after the fall of Assad, on July 12. The Committee for Constitutional and Legislative Affairs in the People’s Assembly during the time of the previous regime was responsible for several tasks, including examining the constitutionality of legislation and draft laws referred by the Presidency of the Republic and the executive authority to the Council, expressing an opinion and submitting its report on this matter to the Council to be read under the dome. If it decided that a draft law was not permissible to be considered, due to its unconstitutionality, the Council would refrain from discussing it, and it would be returned to the party that originally sent it. The last president of the Supreme Constitutional Court during the previous regime was Muhammad Jihad al-Laham, who before that served as President of the Syrian People’s Assembly. The Supreme Constitutional Court is considered the highest judicial authority in Syria. It was composed of five members, one of whom was the president of the court, and they were appointed by the President of the Republic (at the time) by decree. It is not permissible to combine membership in the Constitutional Court with any government position or membership in the People’s Assembly. Related
