Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 17 legitimate outcomes. Once evidence has been established that the legal text is separate from its aims, or the link between the means and objectives is poor, discrimination in such a case becomes arbitrary, constitutes an injustice and is constitutionally illegitimate. Whereas such regulation uphold, rather than undermine, the principle of equality through introducing legislative regulations linking certain legal provisions to the desired legitimate outcomes; and whereas the explanatory note attached to the aforementioned Presidential Decree Law #202/2014 provides the objective justifications which led the legislator to ensure that the representation of border governorates in the HoR reflects the geographical importance thereof since such governorates serve as a national security fence and the first line of defense protecting the security of the country and citizens. Hence, such governorates are entitled to be an exception to the rule of the fair representation of voters, since, even though such exception entails a relative discrimination among the citizens of such governorates and their peer citizens in other governorates, it can still be an objective basis for dismissing all accusations alleging the presence of arbitral discrimination in the constituencies of such governorates. Hence, such discrimination, which is based on an objective foundation, is justifiable and shows that the division of the constituencies located within border governorates does not violate the principles of equal opportunities and equal voting rights. Whereas the right to vote is a public right guaranteed to each citizen as stated in Article (87) of the Constitution, and the exercise thereof by citizens is also emphasized by the Constitution to ensure their contribution to the selection of their leaders and representatives who shall assume the responsibility of managing the affairs of the State and pursue public interest. Furthermore, the rights to elect and be elected in particular are considered complementary to each other, and no parliamentary life can thrive in the absence thereof, nor can public sovereignty be fully established whenever these rights are stripped of their essence in a manner preventing serious and effective exercise thereof. Therefore, such rights are of absolute importance to establish democracy in the manner described in the Constitution. To ensure that parliamentary councils constitute a true and honest representation of the public will, the provisions of Article (87) do not only emphasize each citizen's rights to elect, be elected and vote in referenda, but also the fact that citizens' participation in public life through exercising said rights is considered a national duty which they are required to perform, since the exercise of such rights is closely related to public sovereignty, a main component of all structures which rely on the will of the electorate. Since the Constitution entitled the legislator, as stated in the aforementioned article, to regulate the exercise of the aforesaid political rights, said legislator shall regulate these rights in a manner that would not restrict or undermine them. Moreover, a legislator shall, when regulating the exercise of said rights, lay down relevant rules which are nondiscriminatory, as such is prohibited by the Constitution, or contradictory to the principle of equal opportunity which the State applies to all citizens of different legal statuses. Generally speaking, the regulation of said rights by legislator shall not be contradictory to any of the Constitution's provisions and shall ensure that the voters' right to vote has no restrictions which could lead to the tampering, alternation and disproportionate impact of the votes thereof.