An Examination of the Iranian Guardian Council's Supervisory Process over the Two-Stage Approval of the Public Budget

 ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The constitutional framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran entrusts the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) with the authority to approve the national budget as stipulated in Article 52 of the Constitution. Article 94 further mandates that all parliamentary approvals undergo prior scrutiny by the Guardian Council to ensure conformity with the Constitution and Islamic law. Recognizing the unique characteristics and complexities of the Budget Law, the Law of Internal Regulations of the Parliament has established a specialized mechanism for its approval, distinct from other legislative bills and proposals.
     Historically, the budget approval process was conducted in a single stage, wherein the Parliament reviewed and approved the entire budget in one consolidated document before submitting it to the Guardian Council. However, this approach led to superficial examinations, with representatives often focusing on select sections, without adequately considering the underlying computational foundations and interrelationships within the budget. To address these shortcomings, legislative reforms were introduced through the Law Amending Articles 180 and 182 of the Internal Regulations of the Parliament, transitioning the approval mechanism to a two-stage process. This bifurcated system aims to enhance legislative scrutiny and ensure a more thorough evaluation of the budget's components.

‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
What specific changes have occurred in the supervisory process of the Iranian Guardian Council over the two-stage approval mechanism of the public budget, and how have these changes affected the criteria and methods utilized by the Council in ensuring constitutional and legal compliance?

‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The transition to a two-stage budgeting process has fundamentally altered both the number and the conceptual framework of the criteria employed by the Guardian Council in its budgetary review. It is hypothesized that each stage of the approval process necessitates the application of distinct criteria by the Council, thereby modifying its supervisory approach in both substantive and formal dimensions.

‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This research adopts a procedural analysis method to explore the implications of the two-stage budget approval mechanism on the Guardian Council's supervisory role. The study begins by dissecting the legislative provisions and requirements intrinsic to each stage of the budget process. It involves a critical examination of constitutional articles, legislative reforms, and the Law of Internal Regulations of the Parliament to understand the structural changes implemented.
     The framework includes a comparative analysis of the single-stage and two-stage approval processes to highlight shifts in legislative oversight and Guardian Council supervision. By distinguishing between substantive changes (those affecting the content and criteria of review) and formal changes (those affecting procedural aspects), the research aims to elucidate how the new mechanism influences the Council's methods. Data sources encompass constitutional texts, parliamentary records, and relevant legal commentaries to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the altered supervisory dynamics.

‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The analysis of the legislative changes to the budget approval mechanism in Iran reveals significant impacts on the supervisory role of the Guardian Council. The transition from a single-stage to a two-stage approval process necessitates adjustments in both the substantive and formal aspects of the Council's oversight.
     Substantively, the nature and application of certain criteria used by the Guardian Council have evolved. Four existing criteria require a revised approach:
     Realism of Revenues: Previously, the Council assessed the realism of projected revenues in a single, comprehensive review. Under the two-stage system, this assessment must be more nuanced, with an initial evaluation of general revenue projections in the first stage and a detailed scrutiny of specific revenue sources in the second stage.
     Adherence to Budget Structure: The structural integrity of the budget now demands separate considerations at each stage. The first stage focuses on the overarching framework, while the second stage examines the detailed alignment of expenditures and revenues within that framework.
     Prioritization of Revenues over Expenditures: The Council must ensure that revenue generation strategies are solidified before approving expenditure plans. This sequential emphasis reinforces fiscal responsibility and reduces the risk of budget deficits.
     Timely Approval before Fiscal Year Commencement: The staggered approval process imposes stricter timelines. The Council must expedite its reviews to meet the deadlines of each stage, ensuring the budget is fully approved before the new fiscal year begins.
     Additionally, two new criteria have emerged:
     Compliance with Sectional Requirements: Each stage has specific legislative and procedural requirements. The Council must verify that the government's submissions for each stage meet these distinct mandates.
     Consistency between Budget Sections: The Council must ensure that the detailed allocations in the second stage are consistent with the general principles and allocations approved in the first stage. This alignment is crucial for maintaining budgeting integrity.
     Formally, the timing and application of certain criteria have shifted. Some criteria are now exclusive to a particular stage:
     First Stage Exclusive Criteria: The Council assesses whether the budget content is confined to revenues and expenditures and verifies its time-bound nature, focusing on annual fiscal planning.
     Second Stage Exclusive Criteria: The emphasis is on the comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the budget, ensuring all necessary details and allocations are appropriately addressed.
     These adjustments in the Guardian Council's supervisory process enhance the thoroughness and efficacy of budget oversight, promoting greater fiscal discipline and legislative accountability.

‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
In conclusion, the modification of the budget approval mechanism to a two-stage process in Iran has necessitated a re-evaluation of the Guardian Council's supervisory methods. The Council must adapt to the substantive changes by revising the application of existing criteria and incorporating new ones that reflect the distinct requirements of each stage.
     The formal changes demand a recalibration of the timing for applying specific criteria, ensuring that the Council's oversight is appropriately aligned with the new procedural structure. By focusing certain criteria exclusively on the first or second stage, the Council can provide more targeted and effective supervision.
     It is imperative for the Guardian Council to implement these changes to fulfill its constitutional mandate effectively. By conducting stage-specific evaluations and transparently communicating its findings, the Council can enhance the legitimacy and accountability of the budgeting process. Publishing research reports and engaging with the academic community can further contribute to refining its supervisory role and fostering constructive dialogue.