Previous 15 / 22 Next

Official Gazette – Issue No. 8 bis (a) May 26, 2013 15 Court Having reviewed the Constitution and the presented draft law and after deliberation; Whereas article (177) of the constitution issued in December 25, 2012 stipulates that “The President of the Republic or the House of Representatives shall present draft laws governing the exercise of political rights as well as presidential, legislative or local elections before the Supreme Constitutional Court, to determine their compliance with the Constitution prior to dissemination. The Court shall reach a decision in this regard within 45 days from the date the matter is presented before it; otherwise, the proposed law shall be considered approved. If the Court deems one or more parts of the text non-compliant with the provisions of the Constitution, decision thereof shall be implemented. The laws referred to in the first paragraph are not subject to the subsequent control stipulated in Article 175 of the Constitution”. Whereas the aforementioned text determines the bodies which have the right to present draft laws regulating the exercise of political rights as well as presidential, legislative, and local elections to the Supreme Constitutional Court to apply precontrol procedures thereto; and whereas it stipulates that only two bodies are entitled to do such, namely: President of the Republic and the House of Representatives; thus, the presented draft law was supposed to be presented to the stated court by one of these two bodies. However, since article (230), Section (3), Chapter (5), of the constitution, which includes Final and Transitional Provisions, says that “the existing Shura Council, in current formation thereof, shall assume full legislative authority starting the date on which the constitution is in place until the new House of Representatives is formed.……….”. This means that the Shura Council shall undertake full legislative authority during the transitional period which starts from the date on which the constitution comes into effect until the new House of Representatives is formed. Based on that, the stated court decided to accept the submitted request. Whereas this court, in reviewing the presented draft law, asserts that the pre-control procedures thereof are limited to comparing the text of the draft law with the constitution to determine whether or not such texts conform to the constitution provisions, the following are excluded from the said control: 1. Reviewing the legal wording of the draft law. 2. Examining whether the provisions of the draft law are contradictory or contradict other legal texts, unless such contradiction is not deemed as a constitutional violation. 3. Determining the conformity of some of the provisions included in the draft law, since such matter falls within the legislator estimated authority. Whereas the provisions of article (177) mentioned above states that the scope of the "pre-control" carried out by the SCC is limited to draft laws governing the exercise of political rights as well as the laws regulating presidential, legislative, and local elections. Hence, all legislative texts not directly related to such areas shall not fall within the scope of the "pre-control" of the constitutionality of the draft laws in this

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Shura Council Speaker request for constitutional review of the draft law regulating the exercise of political rights.

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the draft law adheres to the current constitutional political protections.

Alleged Acts: The Shura Council Member filed suit in the Supreme Constitutional Court seeking review of the draft law that limited political rights and they exercise thereof. The drafted law; (1) distinguished between judicial bodies and branches and required the National Elections Commission to assign supervision of voting to judicial bodies; (2) permitted those unable to cast their ballot based on visual impairment or other disability to verbally state the vote to an election official who would record it on a ballot; (3) permitting the President to set the general election date by decree; (4) no modifications may be made to the voter database after the call for elections; (5) reforming the voting abroad system to begin counting before the actual date of elections.

Summary: The court determined that the differentiation between judicial bodies and branches was unconstitutional and required that they words be synonymous. Second, the court determined that all ballots must be direct secret votes, but that this supposes the voter is sighted. Thus, the court determined that the committee head signing the ballot paper violated the right to secrecy. Third, the court determined that Presidential decree violated the constitution because it diminish the integrity of election and removed powers from the Election Commission. Fourth, the court determined that restrictions on the right to voter were limited such those they unreasonably hindered political participation. Fifth, the court determine that the constitution provides protections for Egyptians living abroad and the restriction of voting before election day failed to adhere to these protections.

Conclusion: The court struck down portion of the drafted law and unconstitutional because they conflicted with the political protections set forth in the constitution.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Vote Verification and Transmission

Region: Middle East and North Africa

Country: Egypt

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: May 26, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 30.38327401

Longitude: 31.34626495

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

SCC ruling- some elec procedures and PWDs-May 2013 (English).pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Shura Council Speaker request for constitutional review of the draft law regulating the exercise of political rights.

Primary Documents

Notifications