Rejection of Three-Urgency Bill for Country Closure Was a ‘Tombstone’ for Parliament

Iran’s parliament removed the three-urgency bill for country closure from its agenda. Six parliamentarians, in a joint tweet criticizing this action, wrote that this three-urgency bill was removed from the agenda due to a mistake by the parliament vice-speaker and an unfounded warning from a representative.

Six members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly protested in a joint tweet against the removal of the three-urgency bill for one-month country closure from the agenda during the open session on Tuesday, April 9, 2020. This session was the first open meeting of parliament after the end of Nowruz holidays. Masoud Pezeshkian presided over this session.

Tayyebeh Siavoshi, Seyyed Hamideh Zarabad, Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh, Bahram Parsaei, Seyyed Farid Mousavi, and Fatemeh Saeedi wrote in this joint tweet: “The three-urgency bill for one-month closure was removed from the agenda due to a warning from one representative and a mistake by the vice-speaker. First, Article 71 gives such authorities first to parliament. Second, if Article 79 is only enumerated for the government, why is it placed in the chapter on the legislative branch and under its rights? Third, there is no constitutional warning for the three-urgency bill.”

Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh, representative of Asnuyeh and Naqadeh in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, considers the parliament vice-speaker’s action unconstitutional and rejects the argument of those who believed this bill is subject to constitutional warning, since it was supposed that the urgency of this bill be examined in parliament, not the bill itself, and examining urgency does not carry a constitutional warning.

According to this representative, the argument of those who said that the bill itself is contrary to the constitution was also unfounded because it is the Guardian Council’s duty to determine whether a bill contradicts the constitution.

Another argument by opponents was that basically, country closure is not within parliament’s authority based on Article 79 of the constitution and the government should submit a bill for it. However, Hosseinzadeh says if this is the case, why is Article 79 mentioned in the chapter on the legislative branch’s authorities and not in the chapter on the executive branch?

This was an objection that Tayyebeh Siavoshi, another parliament representative, had previously raised as well.

Article 79 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic states: “Imposition of martial law is forbidden. In case of war and similar emergency conditions, the government is authorized, with the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, to impose temporarily the necessary restrictions, provided that such restrictions shall not remain in effect for more than thirty days, and if the necessity still persists, the government must obtain renewed permission from the Assembly.”

The Asnuyeh representative told Shargh newspaper: “The rejection of the three-urgency bill for country closure, especially at a time when our people are falling ill with coronavirus en masse and dying, was a tombstone for parliament.”

He also interpreted the holding of an open parliament session after one month of closure as meant “to make us and others understand that parliament has turned into a lower-ranking institution that cannot even use its minimum authorities during the country’s most critical circumstances.”

Hosseinzadeh said: “What befell the three-urgency bill for one-month country closure was a complete manifestation of despotism and trampling upon the law.”

Where Did the One-Month Country Closure Plan Come From?

From a few days earlier, during parliament’s recess, some representatives, including Tayyebeh Siavoshi, reported that based on Article 79 of the constitution, a three-urgency bill had been prepared which, if approved and confirmed by the Guardian Council, would “close all government, public and private centers except the Council of Ministers, the Central Headquarters of the Judiciary, parliament, military, governmental and welfare bodies. The bill’s financial resources are planned to be obtained from temporary gasoline sales, withdrawal from the development fund with the Leader’s permission, and assistance provided by the World Bank.”

Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh also told Shargh newspaper about this: “We had around 80 signatures on the bill through registering colleagues’ text messages, and today in the open parliament session, the three-urgency status of this bill was announced as received and raised in parliament. In an incredible move, contrary to regulations and the constitution, strange events occurred.”

He then referred to objections raised against this bill by representatives and that Pezeshkian, the parliament vice-speaker who runs parliament in the absence of Ali Larijani, accepted a constitutional warning.

The Naqadeh representative continued telling Shargh: “Contrary to parliament’s internal regulations, the session chair considered a constitutional warning to be valid; whereas there is actually no possibility of raising a warning about urgency!”

He later referred to other countries such as China and South Korea and said: “How long is this quarantine phobia going to last? We keep saying enemy countries want to push the country toward closure, why do you have this incorrect view on the matter? By liberalizing social interactions, we are causing human casualties for the people.”

It is unclear whether the removal of the country closure bill from parliament’s agenda was ordered by Khamenei or whether the government opposed it as a whole.

In any case, one day after this bill was removed from parliament’s agenda, Hassan Rouhani announced that businesses and institutions in the provinces would resume their activities from April 13 and in Tehran from April 20.

Source: DW