The procedural validity of texts submitted to a referendum
41. Procedural validity comprises three aspects: unity of form, unity of content and unity of hierarchical level.
42. The text submitted to referendum may be presented in various forms:
- a specifically worded draft of a constitutional amendment, legislative enactment or other measure;
- repeal of an existing provision;
- a question of principle (for example: “Are you in favour of amending the Constitution to introduce a presidential system of government?”) or;
- a concrete proposal, not presented in the form of a specific provision and known as a “generally worded proposal” (for example: “Are you in favour of amending the Constitution in order to reduce the number of seats in Parliament from 300 to 200?”).
43. A “yes” vote on a specifically-worded draft – at least in the case of a legally binding referendum – means that a constitutional revision or a (new or revised) statute is enacted, and the procedure comes to an end, subject to procedural aspects such as publication and promulgation. On the other hand, a “yes” vote on a question of principle or a generally worded proposal is simply a stage, which will be followed by the drafting and subsequent enactment of a statute. Combining a specifically worded draft with a generally worded proposal or a question of principle would create confusion, preventing electors from being informed of the import of their votes and thereby prejudicing their free suffrage.
44. An even more stringent requirement of free suffrage is respect for unity of content. Electors must not be called to vote simultaneously on several questions without any intrinsic link, given that they may be in favour of one and against another. Where the revision of a text covers several separate aspects, a number of questions must therefore be put to the voters. However, total revision of a text, particularly a Constitution naturally cannot relate solely to aspects that are closely linked. In this case, therefore, the requirement for unity of content does not apply. Substantial revision of a text, involving a number of chapters, may be regarded as being equivalent to total revision; clearly, this does not mean the different chapters cannot be put separately to the popular vote.
45. The rule of unity of hierarchical level is not as crucial as the previous two rules. It is desirable, however, that the same question should not simultaneously apply to legislation of different hierarchical levels, for example a constitutional revision and the associated implementing Act.