The judiciary recognizes the constitutionality of 18 government appeals in the budget items

The judiciary recognizes the constitutionality of 18 government appeals in the budget items

 Baghdad / Range

On Monday, the Federal Supreme Court issued its decision, about eight months after the government's appeals against some items of the general budget.
The Constitutional Court approved 18 items in the budget, stressing that the House of Representatives "exceeded his powers" in the addition of these paragraphs on the draft law.
The government of Abbadi, earlier this year, appealed to the Federal Court all the movements carried out by the House of Representatives on the budget in 2017. The additions, made by Parliament on the budget law, 40 additions and amendments, the government appealed to 29 of them.
The court had previously set up a committee of experts consisting of three experts, which was then appointed by assigning five others and two reserve advisers to consider the appeals of the Council of Ministers with the provisions of the federal budget.
"The court held a hearing yesterday under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud to consider the appeal contained in some articles of the Federal Budget Law No. 44 of 2017," Iyas Samok, director of the Federal Court's Information Office, said in a statement.
"The court decided to rule on the unconstitutionality of articles (2 / I and /), (8 / V), (11 / III), 11 / V / C, 11 / V / D, 12 / I, 14 / V, 18 / E, 18 / F, 26, 27 / A, 33 / I, 35 / (B), 48 (ii), (49), (56), (57) and (59) ".
The court spokesman said that "the ruling on the unconstitutionality of these articles came because the House of Representatives has exceeded the terms of reference contained in Article (62) of the Constitution on the law of the budget and increased burdens on the project submitted by the Council of Ministers without returning to it."
The statement noted that "the Court responded to the challenge in respect of articles (11 / VI), 18 (c), 18 (d), 24 (c), 32 / V, 32 / V / (47), (48), (53), the fact that the House of Representatives did not set its powers on its legislation and did not impose financial burdens or increase the deficit.
The media spokesman pointed out that "the court responded to the third person's case, the head of the Independent Electoral Commission in addition to his function, which intervened in a secrecy in relation to the unconstitutionality of Article (18 / e) of the Budget Law." He added that "the decision came in the light of the review of the contested material and the petition and its annexes and defenses of the defendant in addition to his job and the three persons on their side and after returning to the report of the five experts unanimously issued and read the constitutional articles governing the subject of the dispute, especially Article (62)
of the Constitution.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]