Listen to the article
The Parliament approved 14 laws during its sessions on December 14 and 15, 2023. On December 19, the Cabinet decided to issue these laws on behalf of the President.
Later on, the caretaker Prime Minister published 11 of them in the Official Gazette, while withholding three: one amending provisions related to private school teaching staff and school budget regulations, another providing financial aid to the Compensation Fund for private school teachers, and a third revising rent regulations for non-residential properties. This triggered a series of constitutional debates over Mikati’s decision to return the laws to Parliament.
Mikati’s decision fueled divisions over the powers of the Presidency and the Premiership, prompting questions about whether he had overstepped the President’s authority by withholding the publication of the laws.
Some constitutional experts argue that, according to Article 51 of the Constitution, the President is required to issue laws within the specified deadlines (one month or five days for urgent laws) following their approval by Parliament and cannot introduce any amendments to them.
As for Article 57, it grants the President the authority to request a review of laws once, requiring Parliament to approve them again by an absolute majority. If the deadlines for issuing or requesting a review of the laws are not adhered to, the laws are considered effective and must be published.
Therefore, rejecting laws during a presidential vacancy may be viewed as unconstitutional and a direct encroachment on the President’s powers. The authority to reject laws is exclusively held by the President. Even if the executive branch is acting on the President’s behalf, it cannot block the legislative process by returning laws to Parliament under the guise of Article 57.
On the other hand, the opposing constitutional view argues that the current presidential vacancy creates a constitutional exception. In this context, the government assumes certain presidential powers, including the authority to reject laws as it exercises the President’s powers. However, this authority should not rest solely with the Prime Minister, but with the entire government.
In any case, Mikati’s decision at the end of 2023 froze the implementation of these laws, returning them to Parliament for a second reading and a new vote by a qualified majority.
Any interested or affected party can challenge this decision before the State Council as long as it is not deemed a governmental action. If the State Council considers the decision a governmental act, it would be beyond its jurisdiction. As a result, these laws were suspended and returned to Parliament.
In January 2024, Mikati’s decision prompted the Landlords’ Syndicate to file a complaint with the State Council, contesting the caretaker Prime Minister’s decision. On April 5, 2024, the State Council, chaired by Judge Fadi Elias and including Judges Carl Irani and Malika Mansour, issued a decision to suspend the implementation of the decree, thus returning the law related to non-residential leases from the Council of Ministers to Parliament.
This decision paves the way for the State Council’s final ruling – expected by the end of September – which conclusively determines the constitutionality of Mikati’s decision to halt the publication of the three laws. The same legal principle was applied to the non-residential lease law, the laws concerning private school teaching staff, the regulation of school budgets and the law aimed at providing financial assistance to the Compensation Fund for private school teaching staff.
All eyes are on the State Council’s upcoming final decision. Some observers and constitutional experts suggest that the Council’s suspension of Mikati’s decision after its publication may signal a ruling that could overturn the rejection of the law concerning non-residential lease agreements. This would come in the final phase of issuing the decision after addressing the core issues.
