On March 9, U.Khurelsukh, the President of Mongolia, submitted a draft law titled “Amendments to the Law on the Parliament of Mongolia” to Parliament through the Chief of the Presidential Office, A.Uilstuguldur. The draft was formally presented to the Speaker of Parliament, N.Uchral.

According to the brief introduction accompanying the draft, the proposal addresses issues surrounding the recall of Members of Parliament (MPs). The document notes that under the current legislation and practice, when the Constitutional Court of Mongolia concludes that an MP has violated the Constitution, Parliament does not have the power to “discuss” the Constitutional Court’s ruling; however the current Law on Parliament regulates that the Parliament shall decide whether to discuss and approve a recall when an MP is in violation of the Constitution or laws or their oath.

Similarly, even when a legally binding court decision establishes that an MP has committed a crime, existing legal provisions require the matter of recall to be discussed and resolved by the Standing Committee on State Structure and the plenary session of Parliament. According to the draft’s concept note, these provisions create ambiguity and make the law difficult to implement in practice.

Many may sympathize with the concerns raised. In recent years, public frustration over the ethical conduct of certain MPs has grown, and debates over accountability have intensified. Nevertheless, beyond the political appeal of stricter standards, a more fundamental legal question arises: does the President actually have the constitutional authority to initiate such legislation? 

This article attempts to examine that question from a legal perspective, particularly in light of the constitutional amendments adopted in 2019.

The Stated Purpose of the Draft

The introduction of the draft law states that its objective is to “strengthen the constitutional order and ensure national security.” It also argues that the issue at hand is not related to parliamentary procedures or the internal functioning of Parliament, but rather concerns a matter of substantive law regarding the early termination of an MP’s mandate.

Furthermore, the introduction claims that Section 36.3 of the Law on the Parliament—which states that the President must follow Section 33.4 of the Constitution when initiating legislation—does not restrict the President’s right to introduce bills concerning the early termination of an MP’s mandate. The note also emphasizes that the proposed amendments do not grant the President any additional powers.

However, the draft offers little detailed reasoning to support these assertions. It does not clearly explain how the matter relates to national security, why it should be considered unrelated to parliamentary procedures, or how Section 36.3 of the law supposedly leaves the President’s legislative initiative unrestricted in this context.

The Significance of the 2019 Constitutional Amendments

To evaluate the issue properly, one must revisit the constitutional amendments adopted in 2019.

One of the most important changes introduced that year concerned the scope and limits of legislative initiative. The Constitution recognizes three actors who may introduce legislation: the President, Members of Parliament, and the Government. Prior to 2019, these actors could initiate legislation without explicit limitations.

The amended Section 26.1 of the Constitution now reads: “The President, Members of the Parliament, and the Government shall exercise the right to initiate legislation, and the scope and limits of this right shall be determined by law.”

This addition fundamentally altered the system. Whereas previously these actors could introduce bills on any matter, they may now do so only within the scope and limits defined by law.

When the amendments were debated in Parliament in 2019, there was initially even a proposal to strip the President of the right to initiate legislation altogether. That idea was ultimately rejected after criticism from scholars and politicians. Instead, the final compromise allowed the President to retain the right, but within clearly defined limits.

Implementation Through the Law on the Parliament

Following the constitutional amendments, several laws were revised to implement the new framework. One of them was the revised Law on the Parliament, adopted in 2020 and again in 2024.

Article 36 of the current law defines the scope and limits of legislative initiative.

• Sections 36.1 and 36.2 specify which types of legislative proposals may be introduced by MPs and the Government.

• Notably, bills related to the functioning of Parliament itself may be initiated only by Members of Parliament.

Section 36.3 then states that the President must follow Section 33.4 of the Constitution when exercising the right to initiate legislation.

Constitutional Limits on Presidential Powers

Section 33.4 of the Constitution was also amended in 2019. Previously, it stated that certain powers could be granted to the President by law. After the amendment, the provision reads that such powers may be granted only within the scope defined in Article 33 itself.

In other words, the Constitution now clearly limits the expansion of presidential powers through ordinary legislation. The President may exercise legislative initiative only within the boundaries of the constitutional powers explicitly listed in Article 33 (noting that some reasonably argue that other provisions of the Constitution also pertain to the powers of the President, and that Section 33.4 fails to address them).

The debates surrounding this amendment make the intention clear. During the parliamentary discussion on June 14, 2019, then-chairman of the Standing Committee on State Structure, MP S.Byambatsogt explained that previous presidents had gradually expanded their authority through ordinary legislation—accumulating powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution. The amendment aimed to reverse that trend and reimpose constitutional limits.

Constitutional scholar O.Mashbat also noted during the same debates that the amendment was designed specifically to prevent the accumulation of new presidential powers through ordinary laws.

The Core Constitutional Question

Nowhere in Article 33 of the Constitution or in other provisions of the Constitution is the President granted any authority related to recalling Members of Parliament.

From this perspective, the issue appears straightforward: if the Constitution does not grant the President powers related to the recall of MPs, then legislation concerning that matter may fall outside the scope of the President’s right to initiate laws.

Moreover, under Subsection 36.1.1 of the Law on the Parliament, legislative proposals concerning the functioning of Parliament may only be initiated by Members of Parliament themselves.

The draft law’s concept note attempts to avoid this limitation by asserting that the issue is not related to parliamentary procedures. Yet it provides little legal reasoning to support that claim.

A Matter Closely Tied to Parliamentary Function

In practice, it is difficult to separate the issue of an MP’s mandate from the functioning of Parliament.

The Law on the Parliament itself states that the primary form of parliamentary activity is the plenary session. Naturally, plenary sessions require duly authorized MPs to participate. Questions regarding the termination of an MP’s mandate therefore directly affect the composition and functioning of Parliament.

Similarly, the law assigns oversight of parliamentary discipline and ethical standards to the Deputy Speaker. This suggests that matters of MPs’ conduct and mandate are intrinsically tied to Parliament’s internal operations.

Furthermore, the Constitution and relevant legislation assign the authority to recall MPs to Parliament itself, not to the President.

A Risk of Constitutional Conflict

Taken together, these provisions raise a serious legal concern. While the President’s proposal seeks to ensure that MPs respect their oath, comply with the law, and adhere to ethical standards, the initiative itself may not align with the Constitution or the legislative framework established after the 2019 amendments.

If that is the case, the proposal risks creating a constitutional conflict of its own.

The debate therefore goes beyond the behavior of individual MPs. At stake is a broader question about the balance of power within Mongolia’s constitutional system and the limits placed on presidential authority in order to strengthen parliamentary governance.