خلاصة:
In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the process of constitutional revision has been entrusted to several major authorities, including the Leadership, the Guardian Council, and the people. In this regard, a question that seems worth raising is which of the aforementioned authorities should be referred to as the actual reviser when interpreting the revised principles and attempting to discover the will of the legislator (the reviser). This article aims to show that by reflecting slightly on the drafting of Article 177 of the Constitution, it can be understood that the legislator or the revising authority in the Constitution is none other than 'the people'; therefore, the opinions of the other aforementioned authorities in Article 177, when interpreting the revised principles, merely possess 'presumptive' value, and the first and fundamental source in this regard is the will of the people at the time of revision.
ملخص الجهاز:
(*)-PhD student in Public Law, Aix-Marseille University 3 (Paul Cezanne), France Table of Contents Introduction Part One: Interpretation of Law Part Two: The Process of Constitutional Revision Part Three: The Special Role of the People in Revision Part Four: Discovering the Will of the Revising Legislator Introduction: When dealing with the vagueness or ambiguity of ordinary law, a judge or any authority interpreting the law has specific and limited options available: 1- They can refrain from citing it and ignore it!
Despite the involvement of other institutions, such as the Cabinet or the Judiciary (in drafting or proposing a legal bill) and the Guardian Council (in ensuring the law's compliance with Sharia and the Constitution) in the overall general process and codification, it is still these parliamentary debates that are considered the primary element for the explanation and interpretation of the law; because, theoretically and practically, it is this Islamic Consultative Assembly that specifically enacts the law, while the aforementioned institutions merely play the role of proposer or controller.
With this interpretation, two points are worth mentioning: A- It might be said that first, the people had no role in the legislative initiative during the revision, and second (unlike the case of the Islamic Consultative Assembly), the people do not have the right to change the proposed law and are therefore limited solely to saying "yes" or "no.
(
, 
, 
)
