Empowering Civil Society Organizations to Raise Unconstitutionality pleas in Lebanon: Safeguards Against Politicization

Abstract

This research addresses the dilemma of accessing constitutional justice in Lebanon, given the limited number of entities authorized to initiate judicial review. It operates on the hypothesis that the efficacy of constitutional review depends on introducing effective legal access mechanisms subject to strict controls against politicization. Employing a comparative analytical approach, the research examines the Lebanese framework against three models: France, Egypt, and Portugal, to extract adaptable mechanisms. The analysis reveals that expanding access can be achieved through indirect mechanisms linking constitutional questions to pending litigation, filtered to ensure seriousness.

The research concludes that the most suitable model for Lebanon involves adopting unconstitutionality pleas as a procedural pathway. This enables qualified civil society organizations (CSOs) to raise constitutional questions within pending lawsuits without granting them an abstract right to direct challenges. Within this framework, the research proposes evolving "standing" from personal interest into a constitutional and societal interest, requiring genuine representative capacity and a clear connection between the CSO's objectives and the contested text, alongside safeguards for independence and specialization. Furthermore, it proposes a judicial filtering system where the trial court verifies the seriousness and relevance of the constitutional question before referral to the Constitutional Council, setting procedural deadlines to prevent dilatory tactics. Ultimately, expanding CSO participation fosters a participatory development in the Lebanese system, balanced with institutional safeguards that preserve legal stability.