Constitutional review

Last updated

Constitutional review, or constitutionality review or constitutional control, is the evaluation, in some countries, of the constitutionality of the laws. It is supposed to be a system of preventing violation of the rights granted by the constitution, assuring its efficacy, their stability and preservation. [1]

Contents

There are very specific cases in which the constitutional review differs from common law to civil law as well as judicial review in general. [2]

Written and rigid constitutions exist in most countries, represent the supreme norm of the juridical order, and are on the top of the pyramid of norms. Also called fundamental law, supreme law, law of the laws, basic law, they have more difficult and formal procedures to updating them than other laws, which are sub-constitutional. The term "constitutional review" is usually characterized as a Civil Law concept, but some of the ideas behind it come from Common Law countries with written constitutions. For instance, the United States was the first country to adopt judicial review based directly on its constitution (see Marbury v. Madison ), even though to this day the functions of the Constitutional Court and of the Court of the Last Resort are separated at neither Federal nor State level in the United States.

The judicial control of constitutionality applies to normative acts as well.[ clarification needed ] [3]

Control systems

Depending on how each country decides to organize his constitutional reviews, it can be attributed to a different organ. In some countries, part of the review can be attribution of a political organ. For instance, In Brazil, the declaration of unconstitutionality in a concrete case by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) [ clarification needed ] can be suggested to senate to give to this declaration global effects. [4]

Bans on constitutional review

Countries can put a ban on constitutional review. Historically, the allowance of judicial review of legislative acts for constitutionality was rare prior to the 20th century. Especially following World War II, [5] many countries began to adopt systems of constitutional review, such that in the 21st century, the lack of such a system is considered exceptional. [6]

Ban on constitutional review in the Netherlands

The Constitution of the Netherlands explicitly forbids courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by parliament, making the Netherlands one of the few constitutional democracies to lack constitutional review as of 2020. [6] The reason for this ban is that constitutional review would put the judiciary in a legislative position, which conflicts with the idea of the separation of powers. The Dutch parliament is responsible for the adherence of the laws it passes to the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has ruled that this ban on constitutional review also extends to rulings on the creation of laws, rulings based on the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and general principles of law. The monist Constitution does explicitly allow the review of laws by treaties that contain provisions binding all members. Consequently, treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights in practice have taken a constitutional review-like effect. [7]

In specific jurisdictions

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional law</span> An area of law that deals with interpretation and implementation of the Constitution

Constitutional law is a body of law which defines the role, powers, and structure of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the parliament or legislature, and the judiciary; as well as the basic rights of citizens and, in federal countries such as the United States and Canada, the relationship between the central government and state, provincial, or territorial governments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political question</span> Legal doctrine of political matters justiciability

In United States constitutional law, the political questiondoctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. One scholar explained:

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial independence</span> Concept that the judiciary should be independent

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the Netherlands</span> Basic law of the Netherlands

The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 24 August 1815 is one of two fundamental documents governing the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well as the fundamental law of the Netherlands proper. The Kingdom of the Netherlands also includes Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten: there is an overarching instrument of the entire kingdom that has constitution characteristics: the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Sint Maarten is the only country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands that has a constitutional court to govern the Sint Maarten legislature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Yuan</span> Judicial branch of Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan is the judicial branch of the Republic of China. It functions as the Constitutional Court and oversees the courts of Taiwan, including the ordinary courts such as the Supreme Court, high courts, and district courts as well as special courts like administrative, and disciplinary courts. The Judicial Yuan holds the following powers:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span>

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The term usually implies that judges make rulings based on their own views rather than on precedent. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to judicial interpretation, statutory interpretation, and separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Netherlands</span> Highest court of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, officially the High Council of the Netherlands, is the final court of appeal in civil, criminal and tax cases in the Netherlands, including Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Aruba. The Court was established on 1 October 1838 and is located in The Hague.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Egypt</span> Legal system of the Arab Republic of Egypt

The judicial system of Egypt is an independent branch of the Egyptian government which includes both secular and religious courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Spain</span> Court interpreting the Constitution of Spain

The Constitutional Court is the supreme interpreter of the Spanish Constitution, with the power to determine the constitutionality of acts and statutes made by any public body, central, regional, or local in Spain. It is defined in Part IX of the Constitution of Spain, and further governed by Organic Laws 2/1979, 8/1984, 4/1985, 6/1988, 7/1999 and 1/2000. The Court is the "supreme interpreter" of the Constitution, but since the Court is not a part of the Spanish Judiciary, the Supreme Court is the highest court for all judicial matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Colombia</span>

The judiciary of Colombia is a branch of the State of Colombia that interprets and applies the laws of Colombia, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The judiciary comprises a hierarchical system of courts presided over by judges, magistrates and other adjudicators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Primacy of European Union law</span> Legal principle

The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle of rule according to higher law establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review</span> Ability of courts to review actions by executive and legislatures

Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in Denmark</span>

Judicial review is the procedure by which courts in Denmark assess whether laws are compatible with the Constitution of Denmark, and administrative acts are compatible with the law. The Constitution does not expressly authorise the courts to review statutes, but the courts have established this right by precedence. Constitutionality is usually decided in the Supreme Court, but can be decided at lower levels of the judiciary.

The judiciary of Poland are the authorities exercising the judicial power of the Polish state on the basis of Chapter 8 of the Constitution of Poland. As in almost all countries of continental Europe, the Polish judiciary operates within the framework of civil law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Basic Laws of Israel</span> Fourteen quasi-constitutional laws

The Basic Laws of Israel are fourteen quasi-constitutional laws of the State of Israel, some of which can only be changed by a supermajority vote in the Knesset. Many of these laws are based on the individual liberties that were outlined in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The Basic Laws deal with the formation and role of the principal institutions of the state, and with the relations between the state's authorities. They also protect the country's civil rights, although some of these rights were earlier protected at common law by the Supreme Court of Israel. The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty enjoys super-legal status, giving the Supreme Court the authority to disqualify any law contradicting it, as well as protection from Emergency Regulations.

Parliamentary sovereignty, also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy, is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law or by precedent. Changes to the constitution typically require a supermajority, often two thirds of votes instead of one half.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Mexico</span> Branch of government in Mexico

The Judiciary of Mexico, officially the Judicial Power of the Federation, is one of the three branches of government in Mexico, and the sole federal judiciary power. It is composed of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which serves as its highest court, the Federal Judiciary Council, the Federal Electoral Tribunal, regional courts, circuit and appellate collegiate courts, and district courts. In October 2024, Mexico became the only legal system in the world where its judges would be elected by popular vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of South Korea</span> Judicial branch of the Republic of Korea

The judiciary of South Korea is the judicial branch (사법부) of the South Korean central government, established by Chapter 5 and 6 of the Constitution of South Korea.

References

  1. Mavcic, Arne (2001). The Constitutional Review (PDF).
  2. Ferejohn, John E. (2002). "Constitutional Review in Global Context" (PDF). Journal of Legislation and Public Policy . 6 (1). NYU Law . Retrieved 19 December 2022.
  3. "Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice" (PDF). Council of Europe - Venice Commission. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
  4. Paulo e Alexandrino (2009), pp. 302-303
  5. Calabresi, Steven G. (Summer 2020). "The Global Rise of Judicial Review Since 1945". Catholic University Law Review. 69 (3). Retrieved 29 November 2024.
  6. 1 2 van der Schyff, Gerhard (July 2020). "The Prohibition on Constitutional Review by the Judiciary in the Netherlands in Critical Perspective: The Case and Roadmap for Reform". German Law Journal. 21 (5): 884–903. doi: 10.1017/glj.2020.45 .
  7. Belinfante; Reede, de (2020). Beginselen van het Nederlandse Staatsrecht (in Dutch). Deventer: Wolters Kluwer. pp. 226–230. ISBN   9789013146509.