The MPs of the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM) requested the Constructional Court to pronounce on the constitutionality of provisions of the law to amend and complement the Constitution of July 5, 2000, IPN reports.

In particular, the PLDM asks the Court to ascertain if the Constitutional Court needs to repeatedly endorse the legislative amendments adopted by Parliament in the second reading to a bill to review the Constitution after the bill accompanied by the Court’s appraisal is presented in Parliament.

The Court was also requested to state if the procedure for adopting a constitutional bill that was substantially and conceptually amended by the MPs in the second reading, without the repeated appraisal of the Constitutional Court, is not violated. The Lib-Dems also want to know if a bill to amend the Constitution that is repeatedly endorsed by the Constitutional Court needs to go through all the procedures stipulated in the Constitution if it was substantially modified in the second reading in Parliament.

The authors of the challenge also asked the Court to pronounce on the constitutionality of the amendments made to the Constitution in 2000, by which the procedure for electing the head of state was modified. According to the authors, the recognition of the unconstitutionality of the given norms will not affect the mandate of the current Parliament and of the current President. The implications refer to the future only. The period of about four months that remained until the expiration of the President’s tenure is enough for holding presidential election so that the head of state is elected by direct and universal vote.