This decision raises constitutional issues that deserve to be addressed, foremost among them the term of membership in the Senate and its relationship to the term of its presidency. Article "65" of the Constitution set the term of membership at four years and permitted the reappointment of members upon its expiration, while it set the term of the Senate presidency at two years with the possibility of reappointment. This distinction reflects the difference in the legal status of each member of the Senate and its President, such that the expiration of the presidency term does not constitute a constitutional reason requiring the dissolution of the Senate or the reappointment of its members, but rather requires a decision on reappointing its President or selecting a new one.
However, setting the membership term at four years does not prevent His Majesty the King from exercising his constitutional powers to dissolve the Senate and reconstitute it before the expiration of this term, according to what he deems to be in the public interest. The separation between the term of membership and the presidency confirms that the constitutional legislator intended to distinguish between the continuity of the Senate and the periodic renewal of its presidency; for if the intention were to reconstitute the Senate every two years, there would be no justification for setting the membership term at four years.
These provisions can be understood within the framework of the keenness to ensure the continuity of the Senate's work as one of the two houses of the legislative authority, and to provide its members with the opportunity to exercise their competencies. Stability of membership contributes to the accumulation of parliamentary experience and enhances the Senate's ability to follow up on draft laws and exercise its legislative role, without the expiration of the presidency term being a reason for changing its composition. Furthermore, completing the constitutional term gives the Senate a broader opportunity to evaluate its performance based on the legislative achievements it realizes, away from considerations of change associated with the passage of specific time periods.
This philosophy is inseparable from the constitutional provisions related to the House of Representatives, whose term was set by Article "68" of the Constitution at four solar years, with the possibility of its dissolution before its expiration. Despite the difference in the method of forming the two houses, setting an original term for each of them reflects the keenness to ensure the continuity of the legislative authority, while maintaining the powers of dissolution as an exception to the general rule. This trend has been evident over the past years in the continuation of elected parliamentary houses until the end of their constitutional terms, and in providing the opportunity for governments to continue exercising their responsibilities for similar periods, thereby enhancing the stability of constitutional institutions.
In this context, the powers to appoint members of the Senate, dissolve it, and reconstitute it remain the prerogative of His Majesty the King, who exercises them in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and his assessment of the public interest. As for the news circulated by some political circles and salons about the imminent dissolution of the Senate, and the circulation of names of figures nominated to leave it and others to join it, this remains within the realm of political speculation. The Royal decision came contrary to these expectations, confirming that the frequency of their circulation does not make them facts, nor does it affect the exercise of constitutional powers.
In conclusion, the continuation of the Senate with its current members after two years from its formation confirms that the rule is to complete the constitutional terms prescribed for the two houses of Parliament, while the powers of dissolution remain in place in accordance with the Constitution. This decision carries a significance that goes beyond the Senate continuing to perform its duties, represented in enhancing the stability of constitutional authorities and granting them sufficient time to exercise their competencies, in a way that achieves a balance between the requirements of continuity and the powers related to change and reconstitution.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
