Public Law
Mohammad Bahadori Jahromi; Hamid Feli; Mahdi Ebrahimi
Abstract
IntroductionThe Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly Principle (4), puts the emphasis on upholding Islamic standards in all legal norms. However, a priori sharia supervision over parliamentary approvals shall be exercised by the faqihs (Islamic jurists) of the Guardian Council ...
Read More
IntroductionThe Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly Principle (4), puts the emphasis on upholding Islamic standards in all legal norms. However, a priori sharia supervision over parliamentary approvals shall be exercised by the faqihs (Islamic jurists) of the Guardian Council concerning the specific laws outlined in Principles (94), (95), and (96) of the Constitution. Other approvals, notably the regulations specified in Principle (4), lack constitutional provision. To ensure optimal implementation of Principle (4), there is a need for an effective mechanism that can guarantee adherence to Sharia standards in regulations. The current Sharia-based supervision mechanism is executed through the Court of Administrative Justice, but this approach has several shortcomings. First, it does not ensure Sharia compliance for all regulations since it is not comprehensive, only addressing the contested aspect of regulations. Moreover, regulations may possess significant importance based on inclusion, hierarchy of legal norms, authority level, and their impact on citizens’ rights and duties, leading to prolonged violations of citizens’ rights even when there are no complaints. In this respect, the present research aimed to examine the feasibility of establishing a mechanism for a priori Sharia supervision over key regulations, addressing the challenges associated with its implementation. The study is based on the hypothesis that there are factors favoring a priori Sharia supervision over other types of monitoring when it comes to some aspects of regulations. Although most challenges are manageable, certain challenges make it both desirable and achievable to implement such a mechanism. Literature ReviewThe literature has offered solutions, suggesting the mandatory submission of government regulations and approvals from the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution to the Guardian Council before their implementation—which can ensure supervision over regulations from both a Sharia and constitutional perspective (e.g., Amjadian, 2012; Haji Ali Khamseh et al., 2021). Another proposed solution involves the establishment of boards specialized in Islamic jurisprudence and legal matters, overseen by the Guardian Council faqihs tasked with proactive monitoring subsequent to the enactment of regulations (Fe’li, 2020). The novelty of the present study lies in its detailed analysis of the feasibility and challenges associated with a priori Sharia supervision over regulations. Materials and MethodsThe study relied on a descriptive–analytical method, using library research to collect and analyze the data. Results and DiscussionA priori Sharia supervision over regulations can viably be applied after the regulations are approved and before they take effect—similar to the supervision over Majlis approvals. A priori Sharia supervision is more aligned with the objective of Principle (4) of the Constitution, so it is favored over other forms of supervision, especially retrospective supervision. Furthermore, it is essential that Sharia-based supervision be applied in advance or a priori to the implementation, at least for critical regulations that are not subject to appeal in the Court of Administrative Justice. Moreover, for the sake of legal security of citizens and the prevention of rights violations, a priori supervision is preferable over alternative types of monitoring because it is difficult to claim and restore the rights of citizens that might have been infringed upon in the past, especially if regulations are retroactively annulled long after their implementation. ConclusionThe challenges related to the principles of continuity and acceleration in delivering public services do not pose a significant obstacle to a priori Sharia supervision because it is feasible to set a deadline for expressing opinions and the Guardian Council faqihs have opinions aimed at guaranteeing these principles. Furthermore, certain regulations that are not allowed to be delayed in their approval and implementation can exceptionally be subjected to Sharia supervision outside a priori Sharia supervision mechanism. It is plausible that the structure and organization of the Guardian Council may not be entirely conducive or equipped to implement such a mechanism, given the unique responsibilities of the faqihs. However, it can be limited to a priori Sharia supervision of critical regulations, and it is not challenging as such, given the reforms aimed at reducing the Court of Administrative Justice’s inquiries from the Council (e.g., the ability to refer to the procedure of the Council’s faqihs in similar cases), and a comprehensive revision of the Council’s organization to lay the ground for a priori Sharia supervision. Additionally, the Head of the Judiciary and the President of the Court can notify the Guardian Council faqihs of cases conflicting with Sharia in order to eliminate the structural defects of the Guardian Council that render it incompatible with supervising important regulations. It is worth noting that Note (1) of Article (87) of the Law of the Court of Administrative Justice (1402/2023) also lays the groundwork for establishing a suitable structure for Sharia supervision over regulations.
Hamidreza salehi; Mohammadreza ABBasi
Abstract
The tax regulation related to Article No. 219 of the Tax Code, is the manifestation of the interaction between taxation affair organization and its taxpayers. In the new regulation, a considerable number of rules are reviewed and amended. From the study of the aforementioned Code, one can understand ...
Read More
The tax regulation related to Article No. 219 of the Tax Code, is the manifestation of the interaction between taxation affair organization and its taxpayers. In the new regulation, a considerable number of rules are reviewed and amended. From the study of the aforementioned Code, one can understand the new approach, which the tax affairs organization has applied when encountering tax payer’s rights. This research is conducted using scientific and research methods. As well, the subject is to review the two vital principles of functus officio and res judicata in terms of tax payment matters. Contrary to its precedent, the referred Code allows the “head of taxation affair administration office” not only to provide the ‘tax report’, and issue ‘tax assessment’, but they are authorized to proceed with the ‘taxpayers’ objection’ in that regard. The possibility of the reconsideration by the issuer, not only increases the likelihood of corruption, it is in inconsistency with the taxpayers’ rights. The said regulation has further allowed the tax affair administration offices to proceed with a so-called “review” procedure against the taxpayers’ matter after the proceeding had been finalized. Whereas, Article No. 239 and No. 270 of the Direct Taxation Act acknowledge the ignorance of res judicata principles as a violation of the taxpayers’ rights. As such, the approach of the above-mentioned regulation is considered a violation of functus officio and res judicata principles, and therefore wrongful.
