MPs Ashraf Rifi, Elias Hankash, Sami Gemayel, Selim Sayegh, Fouad Makhzoumi, Mark Daou, Michel Douaihy, Michel Moawad, Nadim Gemayel, and Wadih Sadek have filed a challenge before the Constitutional Council regarding the constitutionality of Law No. 324 issued on February 12, 2024, which states the public budget for the year 2024, requesting its suspension and annulment. MP Moawad stated from the Constitutional Council: "We are here today to challenge the worst budget that harms the law-abiding Lebanese citizen in favor of smugglers and disrupts the legitimate economy for the benefit of smuggling abroad."
Moawad continued: "They do not want to implement reforms within the state, and we are trying to reform, but the session was nothing but 'chaos and uproar,' and for this reason, we will again try to implement new reforms." He added: "This is a 'budget of crime' as instead of targeting the smugglers and abolishing smuggling, they want to evade reforms and place all burdens on the citizen."
For his part, MP Mark Daou said from the Constitutional Council: "This budget is a disaster from the moment it arrived at the council, and the citizen will pay the price for the mistakes of every MP who voted for this budget, and we will submit proposals to amend many articles to rectify citizens' rights, not to relieve the government."
The challenge prepared by lawyer Lara Saad is based on violations of constitutional articles and paragraphs in the preamble of the constitution. The main legal grounds they raised include:
1. Violation of the contested law of Article 36 of the Lebanese Constitution regarding the lack of a roll-call vote.
2. Violation of the contested law of Article 87 of the Lebanese Constitution concerning the non-respect of constitutional procedures, not preparing the final accounts, and approving them before the approval and publication of the budget.
3. Violation of Article 95 of the contested law of Articles 16 and 18 of the Lebanese Constitution and paragraphs (c) and (d) of the preamble of the constitution regarding the credibility of parliamentary discussions and the forgery occurring in its addition.
4. Violation of Articles 2, 3, and 59 of the contested law and Table No. 2 of Articles 18 and 51 of the constitution concerning the credibility and clarity of parliamentary discussions in that they are included contrary to what was approved by the Parliament.
5. Violation of the contested law of Article 83 of the constitution in that it includes extraneous articles "budget knights."
6. Violation of Article 91 of the contested law of Articles 81, 82, 83, and 16 of the constitution and paragraph (e) of the preamble of the constitution as it grants an authorization not permitted by the constitution and violates the principle of non-retroactivity of laws.
7. Violation of Article 83 of the contested law of Article 16 of the constitution and paragraph (e) of the preamble of the constitution in that it is not permissible for the government to amend the law after its approval by the Parliament.
