Legislative Omission and its Treatment by Jurisprudence; a Comparative Study between Iraq and Egypt

The constitutional judiciary is considered the impregnable shield that protects the constitution from any violation or violation issued by the legislative authority in the laws it enacts, and that the constitution may sometimes assign the legislator to organize a specific issue related to the rights and freedoms of citizens. But the legislator may completely neglect the regulation of that right or that freedom, or he may regulate it, but this regulation is incomplete and incomplete in all aspects, and thus leads to a breach of constitutional guarantees, and all of this ultimately leads to a violation of the constitution, which makes the law subject to regulation unconstitutional, and here the legislator becomes Violating its basic function, which is legislation, and the constitutional judiciary supervises legislative omissions. The Federal Supreme Court in Iraq and the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt have adopted the idea of supervising legislative omissions based on the practical reality that requires that. They exercised control over legislative omissions by exposing deficiencies or deficiency or omission, as well as the recommendation of the legislator to avoid this and direct warnings to him. If the legislator does not respond, the constitutional judge intervenes to remedy the legislative omission. He only issues rulings that address this deficiency and strives with his opinion in what is appropriate to reason and legal logic, or issues his ruling that the contested text is unconstitutional; our main question in this research was how is legislative omission dealt with by jurisprudence in Iraq and Egypt? And his answer is that legislative omission occurs when the legislator organizes a subject, but this regulation is insufficient, which prompts the constitutional judge to intervene to solve the problem. The necessity of the research lies in the fact that it deals with a very important legislative problem that violates the constitutional guarantees and constitutes a clear violation of the constitutional supremacy in both its formal and objective types, and because the issue of omission in legislation is an issue that has increased in light of the development of life and the multiplicity of laws, and since this issue needs treatment in order to restore it. The constitutional guarantee is effective and with the failure of the legislator to avoid omission, here the constitutional judge must intervene and solve the problem, and according to his constitutional authority granted to him, he must deal with that omission with his own judgment according to logic, constitutional limits, and general and specific controls of judicial jurisprudence. Very much, given that legislative omission is a problem resulting from the omission of the ordinary legislator, and it is confronted by the constitutional judiciary, and it is his responsibility to address it; in our research, we followed this comparative analytical approach between the states of Iraq and Egypt.