Article 76 of the Constitution, paragraph (1st), sets out a ruling text entitled (assigning) the President of the Republic (candidate) of the largest parliamentary bloc to form a cabinet (which we believe is the winning bloc in the elections and not formed later, according to the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court, with which we do not agree about the interpretation of the concept of the largest parliamentary bloc). The word (candidate) means that the one who nominated by a body and the paragraph (1st) above has identified the competent body for the nomination, which is (the largest parliamentary bloc), but what is mentioned in paragraphs (3rd) by providing for (a new candidate) and (5th) by providing for (another candidate) means (assigning) (new candidate) of the bloc stipulated in paragraph (1st) the largest parliamentary bloc in the sense that (the assigned) of the president of the republic should (nominate him) from a parliamentary bloc and it makes no sense to accept the presumption that the President of the Republic (assigned by him) to form the Council of Ministers. This matter means that the President of the Republic is the one who nominates a specific person for himself, and at the same time he assigning this candidate! And this is not meeting with the sense of mind, even if the constitutional legislator meant the uniqueness of the President of the Republic by nominating and assigning someone by forming the Council of Ministers without returning to the largest parliamentary bloc. It was possible to stipulate this point by another term or expression, not the term of (candidate). Moreover, the uniqueness of the President of the Republic (by nominating and assigning) is contradicting with the Regime in Iraq which drew up by the article (1) of the constitution in the text (system of government is republican, representative, and parliamentary) and one of this regime’s alpha-beta is to naming (candidate) the post of the Prime Minister by the blocs and the political parties which forms the parliament, contrariwise (the Presidential system) which considered an exclusive jurisdiction for the President of the Republic by naming the Prime Minister. We conclude from this matter that repeating the text of the word (assigning) by the President of the Republic, and repeating of the word (candidate) in paragraph (1st) and (new candidate) in paragraph (3rd) and (another candidate) in paragraph (5th) of the article (76) of the constitution. The constitutional legislator meant that the role of the President of the Republic is limited in (assigning) only, but the right of (nomination) shall be from the parliamentary bloc stipulated in paragraph (1st) of the article (76) which its concept goes to the paragraphs (3rd) and (5th) of the article (76) of the constitution.
The right of (nomination) never goes to the President of the Republic at all, even if the (assigned) Prime Minister failed by forming the Cabinet and the thirty days became expired which stipulated in paragraph (2nd) of the article (76) of the constitution. We disagree with the interpretation listed in the decision of the Federal Supreme Court by the number (29/federal/2020) on 16 March 2020 about moving of (the exclusive competence) to the President of the Republic by assigning (new candidate) because this interpretation is incorrect, while the competence of the President of the Republic is limited to (the assignment) only, not to (nominate) for the reasons above-mentioned, especially that this decision born (dead) and considered ineffective because it has been issued by a court with incomplete quorum and the convening stipulation in the articles (3 & 5) of the Federal Supreme Court No. (30) For 2005 for participating of one retiree Judge from the Federal Court of Cassation in issuing this decision, while the legal substantiation which allows this is missing.
18 March 2020