Mohammed Ali Zaal Al-Shabatat
Aim: This study aims to shed light on the interpretative competence of the Constitutional Court in Jordan through the Constitutional Court experience, in an attempt to indicate the nature and scope of interpreting the Jordanian Constitution provisions, and the authorities entitled to request interpretation, with an indication of the role of the Constitutional Court and its effect in interpreting the Constitution provisions through the Constitutional Court’s original competence in interpreting the Constitution provisions and its competence to interpret during the adjudication of a Constitutional action, with a view to develop this experience and overcome obstacles it faces for the sake of its advancement so as to ensure the public interest and preserve the constitutional legality. Research Methodology: The study is based on describing the case by using the descriptive and analytical method, with analysis of the results obtained through analyzing the text of Article 59/2, in light of the Constitutional Court decisions in the interpretation of Constitution provisions. Results: The study concludes that the Jordanian Constitutional Court competence is only focused on the Constitution provisions, meaning that it is confined to the exclusively interpretation of the Constitution provisions, by excluding any provision not mentioned in the Constitution, regardless of its nature and force. The Constitutional Court shall deal with the interpretation of the Constitution provisions, if so requested, by a decision issued by the Council of Ministers or both the House of Representatives or the Parliament. Any of these authorities shall contact the Court and provide it with a notice of these decisions in a letter signed and submitted by the president of the council requesting the interpretation. Despite the absence of an explicit provision of the power and authority of the Constitutional Court decisions in interpreting the Constitution provisions, it is obvious that its decisions to interpret the Constitution provisions enjoy the same authority and power as its rulings in Constitutional appeals; they are final and binding for all authorities and for everyone. Recommendations: The study recommends the Constitutional judge not to oversight the Constitution objectives and general principles in the interpretation that would lead to the Constitutional Court departure from its competence in the Constitutional interpretation and lead it to amend the Constitution provision by a different interpretation for its goals and objectives. The study recommends the Constitutional judge to determine the Constitutional provision purpose in order to know what the Constitutional legislator aims at from the provision to be interpreted, for the sake of achieving the objectives of the provision to be interpreted. Conclusion: The study concludes that the Jordanian Constitutional Court competence is only focused on the Constitution provisions, meaning that it is confined to the exclusively interpretation of the Constitution provisions, by excluding any provision not mentioned in the Constitution, regardless of its nature and force.