3,433.03
Parliament yesterday agreed with 85.7% support to further discuss draft
procedures to amend the Constitution after the Standing Committee on the State
Structure discusses them next week.
Nine MPs including U.Enkhtuvshin and Ch.Saikhanbileg started work on the draft
procedures a year ago, with help from a working group headed by lawyer and
Labor Hero B.Chimed which studied
Constitution amendment methods in 54 countries. The Constitution was
passed 18 years ago and many feel the need to bring it up to date.
During the discussion, some MPs called for the revocation of seven previous
amendments passed in 1999 so that the original Constitution could be subjected
to the newly proposed procedures. Ch.Saikhanbileg was against this as the
proposals limit the number of amendments and “the principle behind the process
is more important than the amendments”. He had been involved in preparing the
seven amendments, which included lowering the number of seats a party should
hold in Parliament from 51 to 39 before it could form the government.
Kh.Temuujin reminded members that most countries do not allow any change in the
basic structure of the Constitution, or in its guiding principles.
D.Baldan-Ochir noted the Constitution was adopted by a 300-member People’s
Great Assembly in 1992 and suggested involving
the Constitutional Court in the present exercise.
U.Enkhtuvshin, another initiator of the law draft, said the role and status of
the Constitutional Court itself needed redefining. S.Bayartsogt said the
Constitutional Court at present works as neither a court nor a council.
L.Gundalai said changes in the Constitution were serious business and wanted
only some provisions to be open to amendments. U.Enkhtuvshin said they had
considered the issue carefully. The present Constitution is not clear about
certain issues, for example, on the criteria for a town. Some places earlier
known as towns have been unclear abut their status since the Constitution was
adopted.
S.Bayartsogt said governance has been impaired because of Parliament’s failure
to play its expected role in a democracy. He recalled some periods of
Constitutional crisis, such as when the coalition government was dismissed in
2006. These could have been averted if the Constitution had been more clear
cut.
Members wanted amendments to provide stronger protection for human rights than
at present and urged that there should
be no changed in the type of government.
procedures to amend the Constitution after the Standing Committee on the State
Structure discusses them next week.
Nine MPs including U.Enkhtuvshin and Ch.Saikhanbileg started work on the draft
procedures a year ago, with help from a working group headed by lawyer and
Labor Hero B.Chimed which studied
Constitution amendment methods in 54 countries. The Constitution was
passed 18 years ago and many feel the need to bring it up to date.
During the discussion, some MPs called for the revocation of seven previous
amendments passed in 1999 so that the original Constitution could be subjected
to the newly proposed procedures. Ch.Saikhanbileg was against this as the
proposals limit the number of amendments and “the principle behind the process
is more important than the amendments”. He had been involved in preparing the
seven amendments, which included lowering the number of seats a party should
hold in Parliament from 51 to 39 before it could form the government.
Kh.Temuujin reminded members that most countries do not allow any change in the
basic structure of the Constitution, or in its guiding principles.
D.Baldan-Ochir noted the Constitution was adopted by a 300-member People’s
Great Assembly in 1992 and suggested involving
the Constitutional Court in the present exercise.
U.Enkhtuvshin, another initiator of the law draft, said the role and status of
the Constitutional Court itself needed redefining. S.Bayartsogt said the
Constitutional Court at present works as neither a court nor a council.
L.Gundalai said changes in the Constitution were serious business and wanted
only some provisions to be open to amendments. U.Enkhtuvshin said they had
considered the issue carefully. The present Constitution is not clear about
certain issues, for example, on the criteria for a town. Some places earlier
known as towns have been unclear abut their status since the Constitution was
adopted.
S.Bayartsogt said governance has been impaired because of Parliament’s failure
to play its expected role in a democracy. He recalled some periods of
Constitutional crisis, such as when the coalition government was dismissed in
2006. These could have been averted if the Constitution had been more clear
cut.
Members wanted amendments to provide stronger protection for human rights than
at present and urged that there should
be no changed in the type of government.
