The ruling that two paragraphs of the Financial Disclosure Instructions are unconstitutional
The Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling that two paragraphs of Financial Disclosure Instructions No. (2) of 2017 are unconstitutional, indicating that their existence is inconsistent with Articles (47) and (80 / Third) of the Constitution.
A statement issued by the Media Office of the Federal Supreme Court stated that “the court held its session on 20.6.2017 and examined the appeal case against two paragraphs of the financial disclosure instructions issued by the defendant, the Prime Minister, in addition to his post in accordance with his jurisdictions stipulated in Article (80 / Third). Of the Constitution. "
The statement added that "the first paragraph is (11 / first) of the instructions, which decided to stop the payment of the employee's salary and allowances, who did not submit a statement of his financial liability during the period stipulated in the article."
He continued, "As for the other challenged paragraph, it is (12 / fourth), which obligated the Integrity Commission to initiate a criminal case against the person charged with disclosing his financial liability when a case is achieved that contradiction of interests of him and those of his family members mentioned in the article."
The statement clarified that "the court found that the two texts constitute a violation of the provisions of Article (47) of the constitution, which stipulates the principle of separation between the three powers that make up the Iraqi State, which are legislative, executive and judicial."
He pointed out that "the inclusion of the two texts in instructions issued to facilitate the implementation of the Integrity Commission Law No. (30) of 2011 was the form of exceeding the goals of issuing the instructions, and that the Integrity Commission Law did not contain a text authorizing the Integrity Commission to stop the payment of the employee’s salary and allowances in the event that he did not submit a finance disclosure form, which is a type of the salary seizure”.
The statement added that "the Integrity Commission law and any of the penal laws did not contain a criminalizing text in the case of a conflict of interest of the assigned when submitting a disclosure of his financial liability so that the Integrity Commission has the right to initiate a criminal case against him," indicating, "This act cannot be measured against other acts criminalized by the Penal Law. It may be similar to a conflict of interest situation. "
The statement pointed out that "analogy in the criminal field contradicts the constitutional principle. There is no crime and no punishment except with a text."
He stated that "the two texts subject of appeal constitute an addition to articles on the Integrity Law, and this addition, when needed, can be undertaken by the Council of Representatives to issue legislation for it according to its powers stipulated in Article 61 / First of the Constitution."
The statement stated that "the inclusion of these two texts in the instructions takes them away from their role decreed in Article (80/3rd), because the mission of operations is revealing, explanatory, and directed to how to implement the law, the subject of instructions which is issued to facilitate its implementation, and it is not to creates texts to be added to the law”.
To view a copy of the decision, click here
