The Scope of Constitutional Courts' Jurisdiction in the Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Light of Specified Amendment Restrictions

Abstract

The constitutional regulation of this jurisdiction contributes to granting full legal legitimacy to such review, thereby mitigating any potential doctrinal or political controversy. Within this context, the theory of "unconstitutional constitutional amendments" has gained wide acceptance in contemporary constitutional jurisprudence and judiciary, where it has been invoked by numerous courts to play a decisive role in assessing the compatibility of amendments with the constitutional core. The concept of "implicit limits" is no longer a marginal doctrinal debate; rather, it has evolved into a global phenomenon and a judicial reference employed by courts to ensure that the derivative constituent power does not exceed its delegated mandate. Constitutional amendment aims for evolution, not nullification or  abolition, as compromising the essence and fundamental principles of the constitution transcends the concept of "amendment" to become a total deconstruction and replacement of the constitutional document. Although such review grants the constitutional judiciary broad powers, it remains an imperative necessity for safeguarding the will of the original constituent power and protecting fundamental principles. This trend reflects the evolution of comparative constitutional law, ultimately striving to prevent the abuse of the power to amend and ensuring the protection of democracy and human rights against any encroachment by the established powers.