The idea of public constitutional order and the a constitutional judge in protecting it

Abstract

This paper focuses on the notion that constitutional rules are not all equal in terms of the values ​​they express; some even are of great value compared to other rules. Moreover, there is a kind of substantive hierarchy among constitutional rules. So that the rules relating to the type of governance system in the state and its political, economic, and social philosophy, as well as rules related to fundamental rights and freedoms which they have a higher value compare to other constitutional rules, which encouraged the constitutional legislator while creating the constitution to stipulate that it is not possible to amend the constitutional provisions of a higher value. Consequently, the competent authority to amend the constitution needs to respect these rules and avoid taking any action that would jeopardize these constitutional rules and undermine the wisdom of their existence. Since they are considered as peremptory constitutional rules and thus constitute a true reflection of the idea of public constitutional order. In addition to these legislative protections, these peremptory constitutional rules enjoy judicial protection by the constitutional Judges, who reviews the constitutionality of constitutional amendment laws, and also what is practiced of functions through special constitutional complaint called " Lawsuit to guarantee rights " which is intended to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals against all who tends to jeopardize and misuse it.