16 Official Gazette, Issue 24 App (a) on 14 June 2012 After hearing the defense of appellant, the Committee decided that there was uncertainty regarding the unconstitutionality of this law. It decided on the same date to accept the appeal in form, and to urgently request the suspension of the implementation of the appealed decision and the effects arising therefrom, the most important of which were the inclusion of the appellant’s name in the final list of nominees, the continuation of the electoral process on the specified dates, and the referral of Clause (4) of Article (3) of Law No. 73 of 1956 added to the aforementioned Law No. 17 of 2012 to the Supreme Constitutional Court for a ruling on its constitutionality. The Committee requested a ruling on this matter. Whereby the Court has ruled that the content of the text of Article (29) of the law promulgated by Law No. 48 of 1979 means that the legislation has specified therein a way for constitutional petitions to be filed before this court, namely through the direct referral of papers to the Court from one of the courts or bodies with jurisdiction if there is significant uncertainty regarding the violation of any text of the law or statute - in regards to which the presented dispute must be settled – of the provisions of the Constitution, or through the petition being filed by one of the adversaries as a substantive action in which the litigant defends the unconstitutionality of the legislative text. If this court or body with jurisdiction believes the defense to be worthy, it shall be permitted to lodge a constitutional petition. These procedures relate to public order, as they are an essential form of legal action through which the legislation aims to uphold the public interest, regulating the filing of accusations on constitutional issues within the procedures it has drawn up. Whereby the Court has also ruled that the distinction between legislative operations and other operations mistaken for legislative ones is based on a number of elements, the factors of which cannot be definitively determined, but which mostly involve highlighting the main characteristics of the legislative process and what is deemed to be the legal body, including: when attributing a legislative classification to the operations of anybody the law had charged with ruling on particular disputes, it is supposed that the jurisdiction of this body is specified by law and not by an inferior legislative instrument. Further, the legislative element which must be fulfilled by its members in terms of guarantees of ability, neutrality and independence take precedence over its form, and that it has been entrusted with the authority to resolve disputes by virtue of decisive resolutions which are not subject to the review of any non-legislative authority, without prejudice to the main legislative guarantees which cannot be waived and which in essence grant sufficient opportunities for the arguments of the parties involved to be considered and for their claims to be examined in light of the legal framework stipulated for previously by the legislation. Rulings issued in disputes shall give assurance of the legal facts, crystallizing the substance thereof with regards to the rights of the defendant or disputed party. This being so, the Constitutional Declaration issued on 30/3/2011 described the legal nature of the Presidential Elections Committee as stipulated at the start of the first paragraph of Article (28) which states, “A supreme judicial commission named the Presidential Elections Committee will supervise the election of the President of the Republic beginning with the announcement of the opening of candidate nominations and ending with the announcement of the election result.” The second paragraph of the same article gives details of the composition of the commission, limiting it to judicial members, in contrast to the situation of Article (76) of the Constitution of