The first round of discussions on the draft amendments to the Law on Parliamentary Elections took place during a recent session of the parliament, following the Constitutional Court's third official opinion on the matter. The proposed changes were prompted by the court's conclusion that certain provisions of the current law violate key constitutional principles.

The Constitutional Court ruled that Subsections 41.9 and 44.6 of the Law on Parliamentary Elections contradicted several articles of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court found that allowing members of parliament (MPs) to distribute their work reports or meet with voters before the nomination period without these actions being classified as election campaigning violated constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and the non-discrimination clause based on one’s position. These privileges gave sitting MPs an unfair advantage over other potential candidates, breaching Subsections 1.2, 14.1, 16.2, and 16.9 of the Constitution, which uphold equality, non-discrimination, and fair electoral rights.

In response, the newly drafted amendments propose to repeal Subsection 41.9 entirely and revise Subsection 44.6 to allow any person, not just sitting MPs, to organize public meetings to present their work or achievements before the official nomination process begins. This aims to level the playing field for all electoral participants.

Furthermore, the draft law reinforces the ban on distributing materials or items intended to influence voters during the campaign period. According to Subsection 48.1, this restriction applies from the start of an election year until the end of election day, and similarly from the official announcement of any by-elections or special elections. Notably, the working group clarified that while this ban applies to printed materials, it does not extend to digital or electronic reports, a distinction expected to prompt further discussion in future sessions.

The first discussion of the draft law concluded without any objections, and the draft was approved at this initial stage. Further readings and possible revisions are expected in the upcoming sessions of parliament.

Moreover, during a session discussing the conclusions of the Standing Committee, MPs engaged in a lively exchange of questions and opinions regarding a significant legal development: the submission of a proposal to the Constitutional Court to review whether a law passed by Parliament had violated the Constitution.

MPs B.Enkhbayar and D.Munkhbaatar commended the move as a historic precedent, noting that it marks the first time in the 33 years since Mongolia adopted its democratic Constitution that Parliament has formally requested a Constitutional Court review on the validity of a specific law. Both lawmakers praised this as a demonstration of parliamentary maturity and a commitment to constitutional accountability.

MP Kh.Temuujin also expressed strong support, emphasizing that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. He pointed out that ordinary courts lack the authority to summon parliament, request parliamentary records as evidence, or require the appointment of parliamentary representatives for court proceedings involving laws passed by the legislature.

Kh.Temuujin elaborated that according to Mongolia’s Constitution, only the Constitutional Court has the legal mandate to determine the constitutionality of laws and parliamentary decisions. “Parliament is the supreme organ of state power, and lawmaking is its exclusive right,” he said. “No regular court should exceed its authority by interfering with the legislative process.”

He emphasized that the growing trend of courts demanding parliamentary documents and decisions undermines the separation of powers and constitutional framework. The only way to address and correct this legal overreach, he noted, is through a direct proposal to the Constitutional Court for clarification and resolution.