The debate did not go without controversy as a constitutional and political event, lasting two hours after the introduction and reaction. Article 2 (3) of the Council of Ministers states that "the Council of Ministers, by decree on the basis of the proposal of the minister concerned with the recommendation of the managing authority for the oil sector, the prohibited areas of the territories under the jurisdiction of the Republic Lebanon, where the delegates split up, and the debate about whether the Lebanese government is the right place to give oil companies operational contracts or concessions for oil and gas exploration on the mainland, or whether the government's decision must be ratified by The vast majority of the different parliamentary blocs emphasized the necessity of the approval of the House of Representatives, based on Article 89 of the Constitution, which states that "no obligation or privilege for a natural resource or interest of public interest or to exploit any monopoly, except by Act ». Hezbollah and Amal movement and the most powerful defenders of this idea. MP Ibrahim al-Moussawi stressed that "the Council has the right to monitor the work of governments, because in determining and implementing laws, the parliament sees the future of future generations and not limited to the immediate period."
Minister César Abi Khalil did not agree with the idea, along with a few delegates from the powerful Lebanese bloc. The Minister for Energy is empowered by the Constitution Council's decision (No 2/2002), which "has given the government permission to grant two licenses for the provision of mobile phone services." He stressed to delegates that "what is given in the land of oil and gas in the country is not a privilege but a research and production contract, Other Parties." Future MPs have insisted that this is a government task. in the vote, in the opinion of deputies and other blocks, in addition to Awnin's deputies, insisted on the need to return to the House of Representatives, but the adoption of this article in the joint committees does not mean that it is a becomes law, the floor will be the General Assembly of the House of Representatives when the proposal is on the agenda.
In connection with the "News", the Minister of Energy, what he said at the meeting of the joint committees on the decision of the Constitutional Council and the contract of exploration. And believes that what has happened is not a constitutional struggle, but a struggle between the House of Representatives and the Government & # 39 ;. Abi Khalil emphasized that "oil wells must be established, but they do not require the adoption of a special law for each permit, which falls within the powers of the Council of Ministers." The Minister for Energy defended his position on the grounds that "The House of Representatives legislates and accounts, if the House of Representatives has the right to ratify the permits and appeared after a defect, who will keep it?" Is the Chamber of Deputies responsible, while it is their duty to make the ministers responsible? & # 39;
Abi Khalil: the Constitutional Council has previously given the government permission to issue permits
Future members of parliament have met with the Minister of Energy to limit this issue to the government. But their background in the debate was political. They stressed that "the entire proposal in its content is a government action, so it must be set up by the government to prepare and take responsibility, in order to avoid duplication of the work of the executive and legislative authorities". For his part, MP Nicola Nahas said in an interview with "News" that it is better "to resort to the opinion of the legislative and consultative". A position announced at the meeting and supported by other colleagues, including MP Michel Moawad.
On the other hand, the deputies of the other blocs insisted on their position to return to parliament, emphasizing that the speech at the meeting was "a constitutional debate" and that the right of the House of Representatives was a matter of concern for the Constitution. is. This "shari'a" raises a question about ignoring the "violation of the constitution" by former MPs. Why did the & # 39; Excellencies & # 39; (whether they were personally present in the previous discussions or their blocks) the right of the House of Representatives to ratify the licenses when the government approved the law on the petroleum resources at sea? Do MEPs remember today Article 89? Why does the House of Representatives assume "ratification" while its task is limited to legislation and accountability? Responses of delegates «not simpler». Some of them associate it with "establishing the principle of transparency", and others felt that "what happened earlier is wrong and does not justify doing it again". This is as easy as dealing with issues of public administration and subjects that are just as important as the petroleum sector. In this connection MP Eli Farzli believes that "ignoring this issue in the Petroleum Resources law at sea was a mistake, but if the previous majority does not concern itself with the constitution, will we follow its approach?" He points out insists that "he supports the idea of returning to the House of Representatives, provided that this does not lead to an obstruction of the procedures of responsibility."
Source link