CHAPTER 14
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES
Article 95 — Review of Elections and Referendums
The Constitutional Court shall ensure the constitutional integrity of national elections, referendums, and direct-democracy procedures.
The Court may review: a) referendum questions before they are put to a national vote; b) the constitutionality of electoral legislation before or after entry into force; c) constitutional complaints regarding national vote procedures that raise a systemic or serious constitutional question; d) disputes concerning the constitutional rights of participation in direct democracy.
Division of jurisdiction: a) The Independent Electoral Authority administers elections, certifies results, and resolves technical and procedural disputes in the first instance; b) Ordinary courts hear individual electoral rights complaints, including unlawful denial of voter registration, candidate eligibility disputes, and local electoral disputes; c) The Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the constitutionality of electoral laws, systemic violations of electoral rights, and challenges to national election or referendum results on constitutional grounds.
The following may bring electoral complaints before the Constitutional Court: a) political parties that participated in the relevant election or referendum; b) candidates whose constitutional electoral rights are directly affected; c) the Independent Electoral Authority where a constitutional question arises in its proceedings; d) at least twenty (20) deputies of the Lower House or five (5) senators of the Upper House.
The Constitutional Court shall decide electoral complaints within thirty (30) days of filing. For complaints filed before a vote, the Court shall decide within fifteen (15) days. These deadlines may not be extended.
Certified election results remain provisionally in force while a constitutional challenge is pending. If the Constitutional Court finds a constitutional violation that materially affected the result, it may annul the result in whole or in part and order a rerun of the affected part of the election.
Article 96 — Democratic Integrity
No electoral law, referendum law, digital voting system, signature-collection system, or public voting technology may be introduced or deployed unless it satisfies all of the following: a) equality of political participation; b) secrecy of the ballot where voting is secret; c) public verifiability; d) cybersecurity standards established by constitutional law and reviewed by an independent technical body; e) accessibility for all citizens, including persons with disabilities and citizens residing abroad where law so provides; f) auditability by independent bodies, accredited observers, and party agents.
Before any electoral or referendum system is deployed, the Independent Electoral Authority shall certify in writing that all requirements of paragraph 1 are satisfied. No system may be used in any national democratic process without this certification. The certification shall be published at least sixty (60) days before the relevant vote.
Any actor with standing under Article 90 may challenge the certification or the system’s compliance before the Constitutional Court. The Court shall decide within fifteen (15) days of application.
These guarantees are constitutional requirements and may not be waived by ordinary law. Use of a non-certified or non-compliant system renders affected results subject to annulment by the Constitutional Court. Annulment does not require proof of actual outcome-determinative fraud — material non-compliance with constitutional standards is sufficient grounds.