It is obvious that the Parliamentary assemblies are taking over serious missions and tasks since they enact the laws that identify the parameters of governmental policies on the internal and external levels. Moreover, parliamentary assemblies monitor and oversight the internal and external government policies of the political, financial, economic, social, and cultural aspects.
Thus, The Jordanian Constitution granted group of immunities to the MPs of Jordanian House Of Representatives in order to exercise their actions and business without any restriction that limit their freedom, and preserve their independence in the manner keeps them away of any threat, or exerting pressure on them and to prevent them from being obstructed from following up their actions to the fullest extent.
During the convening session of the House, the Member may not be legally prosecuted , nor legal or administrative measures taken against him, nor arrested or detained except by the House permission, with the exception of the case of criminal flagrante delicto. In the event of his arrest in this manner, the House should be notified immediately.
Should a Member be detained for some reason during the period when the House is not sitting, the Prime minister should notify the House when it sits of the measures taken enclosing the necessary clarification. The House shall decide the continuation of such measures or suspension thereof immediately.
For that reason, the immunity here requires that no arrest and trial measures have to be taken against the Member of the House of Representatives except in the case of flagrant confusion during the session, except the obtaining the permission of the House and this is what is called the procedural parliamentary immunity. As for the objective parliamentary immunity, it is not permissible to prosecute the Members of the House criminally or civilly for the ideas or opinions they express at any time because of conducting their parliamentary action. And the Jordanian constitution was obvious when addressing this kind of immunity in which the Article (87) stipulates that” Every member of the Senate and House of Representatives shall have complete freedom of speech and expression of opinion within the limits of the by-laws of the House to which he belongs, and the Member may not be answerable because of any voting or opinion he expresses or speech he makes during the sitting of the house “ .
When the House is asked to lift the immunity of one of its members , it is not considering the issue of the facts attributed to him judicially to show the condemnation or innocence , however, the House investigates them politically to be confirmed that the accusation is serious or malicious that is generated from revenge motives and threats . If it appears to the House that the accusation is serious, it should lift the immunity of the parliament member and this is confirmed by the By-Laws of the House Of Representatives as the article (150) stipulates that;” The House shall not decide on the subject of the charge. Its role shall be limited to the permission to the taking of the legal measures or the continuation thereof once it is evident to it that the purpose thereof is not to influence the representative to jeopardize his parliamentary function” .
With related to the historical development of the parliamentary immunity in Jordan, we see that the basic law of the year 1928 didn’t include, upon its issuance, any indication of the objective parliamentary immunity ( immunity against opinion crimes ) or procedural parliamentary immunity ( immunity against criminal procedures) as guarantees of the Legislative House’s guarantees.
The parliamentary immunity was one of the most important subjects that submitted by the Legislative House’s Members in which they refused to consider the agenda assigned to them , at the top of which was the adoption of the Jordanian-British Treaty only after approval of texts grant the Legislative House’s Members the parliamentary immunity, as a result, The Prince Abdullah intervened to resolve the conflict to the interest of the Legislative House and granting its members the parliamentary immunity according to the amendment of the basic law of the year 1928 in which the article (41) after amendment stipulates that : the member of the legislative House shall not be arrested or brought to trial unless it is notified with a decision that there is a sufficient reason for trying him or he was arrested in flagrante delicto or while committing the crime, moreover, every member of the House has the freedom of speech within the limits of the by-laws ratified by the House , and no legal measures have to be taken against him for any voting , opinion ,or speech he presents, and if any member is arrested for any reason during the period the House is not sitting, the Prime Minister should notify the House upon sitting the taken procedures with necessary clarification.
After nullification of the basic law of the year 1928 and issuing the constitution of the year 1974, this constitution (in the article 54) confirmed that the MP is not detained, arrested or prosecuted during the sitting of the House unless the House that the MP affiliates to issuing decision by majority voting that there is a sufficient reason to prosecute him or submitting him to a trial , or unless he is detained or arrested with the exception of the case of criminal flagrante delicto, and every MP has the freedom in speech within the limits of the House system, besides, there are no legal measures that taken because of voting , opinion he expresses or speech he casts , and if the MP is detained or arrested for some reason when the House is not sitting , the Prime Minister notify the House upon convening of the procedures taken with necessary clarification.
It is must be indicated here that the objective and procedural By-Laws doesn’t show the legal mechanism to lift the immunity
After that, the constitution of the year 1952 was issued which stipulates through its articles (86), (87) mentioned before the parliamentary immunity in which the government should notify the House immediately in the case that the MP is detained or arrested with the case of flagrante delicto unless it is stipulated in the constitution of the year 1947.
The current by-laws of the House of Representatives issued in 2013 was developed and consistent with requirements of the parliamentary and democratic life . With regard to the parliamentary immunity, the By-Laws confirms, in the article (146), on the procedural parliamentary immunity and expanded its scope which includes that nor legal or administrative measures taken against the MP when the House is convening with the exception of the case of criminal flagrante delicto.
Furthermore, the By-Laws show the measures of lifting immunity of the MP in which the Prime Minister shall submit the request for permission for taking legal procedures to the House Speaker enclosing memorandum indicating the kind of crime, its place, its time, and the evidences , then the Speaker shall refer the request to the Legal Committee for inspection, consideration and the submission of the report thereon within a period not exceeding fifteen days. If the report is not submitted within the said period, the House may decide on the request directly. The committee’s report is presented before the House to be discussed and finally decided on. If the House found a sufficient reason to take required procedures , it decides to lift the immunity by absolute majority.
It should be indicated here that the MP from whom the immunity is lifted and is not arrested or detained has the right to attend the sittings of the House and the meetings of committees in addition to take part in discussions and voting, yet the MP has no right to waive his immunity without the permission of the House.
For that reason, we find that the parliamentary immunity is a set of special rules set out as an exception to ensure the House’s independence from other authorities and to enable it conducting its constitutional tasks and duties, and these rules are represented by not held the MP accountable because of their opinions and ideas while they are carrying out their parliamentary actions and not to take legal procedures against them without the permission pf the House they affiliated to.
But it is important to say that The House Of Representative at that period has no indication for the parliamentary immunity in its two parts.