The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System - 2
Mustafa ŞentopAs a result of the constitutional amendment approved by Law No. 6771 in 2017, the parliamentary system of government was changed and the executive presidential system was put into effect in Türkiye. Within the scope of the amendments made by Law No. 6771, Article 101 of the Constitution regulating the election of the president of the Republic who assumed the function of the sole executive body in the new governmental system and the candidacy for the presidency was also redrafted. However, the rule that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for two terms at most as contained in Paragraph 2 of Article 101 has sparked various debates in the public within the context of the question of whether the presidential elections that had been held during the parliamentary system of government are to be taken into account when implementing this rule. Within this framework, the matter was analysed in the article titled “The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System” which was published on March 2022 in the Journal of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi and it has been put that the aforementioned question should be responded in a negative way, departing from the meaning given to Article 101 according to the interpretation methods and from principles concerning the application ratione temporis of statutes. On the other hand, the paper titled [On the Constitutional Rule of Being Elected as the President of the Republic for two terms at most ” which has been published in the 3rd volume of the 46th issue of the Mülkiye Journal ] criticized the assessments made in the previous article, arguing that presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing the said rule. The current study will examine the paper published in the Mülkiye Journal in this regard and seek an answer to the question of “whether or not the objections put forward in that paper legally invalidate the findings of the previous article on the meaning, the scope and the manner of the application ratione temporis of Article 101 of the Constitution.”
Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sisteminde İki Defadan Fazla Cumhurbaşkanı Seçilememe Kuralı – 2
Mustafa ŞentopTürkiye’de, 2017 yılında 6771 sayılı Kanun’la gerçekleştirilen Anayasa değişikliği sonucunda parlamenter hükümet sistemi değiştirilmiş, cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sistemi yürürlüğe konmuştur. 6771 sayılı Kanun’la yapılan değişiklikler kapsamında, yeni hükümet sisteminde tek başına yürütme organı fonksiyonunu kazanan Cumhurbaşkanının seçimini ve Cumhurbaşkanlığına adaylığı düzenleyen Anayasa’nın 101’inci maddesi de yeniden kaleme alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda maddenin ikinci fıkrasında yer alan “Bir kimse en fazla iki defa Cumhurbaşkanı seçilebilir” hükmü kamuoyunda, “bu hükmün uygulanmasında parlamenter hükümet sistemi döneminde yapılan Cumhurbaşkanı seçimlerinin dikkate alınıp alınmayacağı” sorusu bağlamında çeşitli tartışmalara sebep olmuştur. Bu çerçevede 2022 yılının Mart ayında Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi’nde “Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sisteminde İki Defadan Fazla Cumhurbaşkanı Seçilememe Kuralı” başlığıyla yayımlanan makalede mesele incelenmiş; yorum yöntemlerinden hareketle hükme verilen anlam ve kanunların zaman bakımından uygulanmasına ilişkin prensipler doğrultusunda söz konusu soruya olumsuz yanıt verilmesi gerektiği ortaya konulmuştur. Diğer taraftan 2022 yılının sonunda Mülkiye Dergisi’nin 46’ncı sayısının 3’üncü cildinde “Anayasa’nın İki Defadan Fazla Cumhurbaşkanı Seçilememe Kuralı Üzerine” başlıklı bir yazı kaleme alınmış ve önceki makalede yer verilen değerlendirmeler eleştirilmiş; “Bir kimse en fazla iki defa Cumhurbaşkanı seçilebilir” hükmünün uygulanmasında parlamenter hükümet sistemi döneminde yapılan Cumhurbaşkanı seçimlerinin de dikkate alınması gerektiği savunulmuştur. Bu çalışmada ise konu hakkında Mülkiye Dergisi’ndeki yazıda yer verilen değerlendirmeler incelenecek ve “söz konusu yazıda öne sürülen itirazların, Anayasa’nın 101’inci maddesinin anlamı, kapsamı ve zaman bakımından uygulanma şekli açısından önceki makale ile ortaya konulan tespitleri hukuken geçersiz kılıp kılmadığı” sorusuna cevap aranacaktır.
The rule stating that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms as regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution as amended by Law No. 6771 in 2017 has raised the question of whether or not presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing this rule. This question was analyzed by Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şentop in his article titled “The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System” which was published on March 2022 (Şentop, 2022). In that article, it has been put forth that the parliamentary period should not be taken into account while implementing Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution during the presidential system of government, departing from the meaning given to that paragraph according to the legal interpretation methods and also from the principles concerning the application ratione temporis to of statutes. On the other hand, a paper titled “On the Constitutional Rule of Being Elected as the President of the Republic for two terms at most”, which was published by Kemal Başak on September 2022 (Başak, 2022), criticized the assessments made in the previous article, arguing that presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing the same rule.
The purpose of this article is to examine Başak’s (2022) paper, without making a fresh assessment of Article 101 of the Constitution and to seek an answer to the question of whether or not the objections put forward in Başak’s paper legally invalidate the findings of the previous article (Şentop, 2022) regarding the meaning, the scope and the manner of the application ratione temporis of Article 101 of the Constitution. In this regard, the reason for examining Başak’s paper here as a separate academic article on the same legal matter is the fact that Başak’s (2022) paper provides an extensive summary of the opinions of academicians as well as politicians who expressed the view that, regardless of the change in the governmental system, all presidential elections should be taken into consideration while applying Article 101 of the Constitution, which has been the focal point of the public debate on the matter.
The views put forward in Başak’s (2022) paper are based on the presupposition that the constitutional rule regarding a person’s ability to be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms was not amended by Law No. 6771 in 2017. The current paper thus, firstly examines this presupposition and seeks to answer the question of whether two separate Constitutional Articles were entered into force at separate times regarding the matter, as previously argued in Şentop’s (2022) article or whether only one Constitutional Article has been in force, as argued by Başak (2022). It is expected that the answer to this question, by determining whether the provision contained in Law no. 6771 of 2017 has a separate legal existence from the provision established by Article 4 of Law no. 5678 amending the Constitution in 2007, will provide a better understanding of the legal characteristic of the rule stating that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms. Thereafter, this article examines the legal validity of Başak’s (2022) objections with regard to Şentop’s (2022) assessments concerning the application ratione temporis of statutes, as well as the application of the literal and historical interpretation methods for determining the meaning of Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution.”
