The postponement should not be viewed merely as a change in the date of the opening of the ordinary session; it is a constitutional tool that provides a degree of flexibility in determining the start date of the parliamentary session, within limits that prevent compromising the principle of the periodicity of the legislative authority's meetings. The importance of this flexibility is evident in that the start of the session does not only mean the return of the National Assembly to exercising its legislative and oversight powers, but it is also linked to constitutional and organizational arrangements within the House of Representatives, through which its internal structure is completed in preparation for a new phase of parliamentary work.
At the forefront of these requirements is the election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as Article (69) of the Constitution stipulates that the Council shall elect a Speaker for a period of one solar year at the beginning of each ordinary session. The internal system of the Council has emphasized the importance of this procedure, as Article (5) of the internal system stipulates that no discussion or decision shall be made before the election of the Speaker. This is followed by the election of the members of the Permanent Bureau, then the completion of the formation of the parliamentary committees, alongside the movement related to blocs and coalitions and their re-arrangement, which affects the distribution of roles within the Council and the nature of its work during the coming session.
From this perspective, the philosophy of postponement can be understood as a balance between the regularity of the National Assembly's meetings at specific times and allowing a time margin before the start of the session, during which the parliamentary environment can be prepared for its launch, without turning it into a disruption of the legislative authority. For this reason, the Constitution has surrounded the postponement with clear formal and substantive requirements, obliging the issuance of a Royal Decree for postponement to be published in the Official Gazette before the constitutional date set for the meeting, and limiting its duration to no more than two months.
The postponement does not reduce the duration of the ordinary session; the constitutional legislator has set its duration at six months starting from the date on which the National Assembly is called to meet, and not from October 1st as a rule. It also does not affect the legislative and oversight powers of the National Assembly, but rather delays the start of their exercise within the ordinary session to the date set for its convening.
In addition to postponement, the constitutional legislator has granted the King the authority to adjourn the sessions of the National Assembly, and the difference between them is fundamental. Postponement, which is regulated by Article (78) of the Constitution, precedes the parliamentary session and delays its start date, while the adjournment stipulated in Article (81) occurs after the session has started, and it entails the suspension of the National Assembly's sessions for a specified period before resuming them.
The constitutional legislator has surrounded the adjournment with restrictions that prevent its use to disrupt parliamentary work; it allowed the King to adjourn the sessions of the National Assembly three times during the ordinary session, and it decreases to two times if the delay in the start of the session preceded. Since the Royal Decree has been issued to postpone the Council's meeting in the coming session, the King's authority to adjourn its sessions during it will be only twice.
More importantly, the Constitution has set a common time limit for postponement and adjournment, so that the total of their durations in one ordinary session does not exceed two months. This link reveals a precise constitutional philosophy; the constitutional legislator granted the head of state flexibility in managing parliamentary time, whether before the start of the session or during it, but it surrounded this flexibility with time restrictions that prevent its extension to the point of disrupting the National Assembly or detracting from its constitutional role.
In conclusion, postponing the meeting of the National Assembly is not a departure from the regularity of parliamentary life and the periodicity of its meetings, but rather a tool for its constitutional organization, balancing between flexibility in determining the start of the session and ensuring the regularity of the legislative authority's work, within time limits that prevent the disruption of the National Assembly or the reduction of its constitutional powers.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, Jordan University
