Shatha Ahmad Al-Assaf
This research addresses the legal regulation of immunity of the House of Representatives members in the Jordanian constitution, to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the Jordanian legal regulation of the parliamentary immunity ratione materiae and procedural immunity enjoyed by the House of Representatives members. It also investigates to what extent such regulation realizes the justifications for granting immunity, aimed at ensuring the independence of the parliament, and allowing the House of Representatives members to carry out their role and represent the popular will efficiently, without fear of accountability or retaliation through malicious charges to hinder them from performing their legislative and oversight duties. On the other hand, the legal regulation of immunity shall prevent the representatives from abusing the immunity. The research also highlights to what extent the Jordanian legal regulation of parliamentary immunity needs development and amendment in terms of the restrictions related to the parliamentary immunity ratione materiae and procedural immunity, and the exceptions thereof. This research conducts a comparative analysis with the Iraqi constitution’s legal regulation of immunity, regulated under legal provisions different from those of the Jordanian constitution, as well as containing legal texts that are more recent than the Jordanian ones. The research revealed a number of important findings, the most prominent of which is the existence of loopholes and shortcomings in the Jordanian constitution’s regulation of immunity, most notably that the immunity ratione materiae is subject to a spatial restriction, i.e. such immunity covers only the statements and opinions expressed during the House’s settings, which limits the effectiveness of this type of immunity, confining it to the parliament building. In addition, procedural immunity is limited to the arrest and trial of the representative without taking into consideration the rest of the penal procedures, such as searching the representative or their house, and it is also subject to a temporal restriction, i.e. it is enjoyed only in the parliamentary sessions without parliamentary recess. Moreover, another loophole and shortcoming is that the decision to lift the immunity of any member of the House of Representatives is not subject to judicial oversight. In addition, the immunity does not cover the felonies committed in flagrante delicto, overlooking the seriousness of such misdemeanours violating honor and public morals. This research presents a set of recommendations, most notably the need to amend the Jordanian constitution by expanding the spatial scope of the parliamentary immunity ratione materiae to include the opinions and statements of the House of Representatives member related to parliamentary duties thereof, without limiting it to the parliament building. It is also recommended to provide effective procedural immunity by amending the Jordanian constitution to include all penal procedures, and by expanding the scope of its temporal restriction to include convening and non-convening sessions. There is also a need to provide for judicial oversight over the decision related to the lifting of procedural immunity, and it is preferable that the Jordanian Constitutional Court be the competent authority of oversight.