Introduction
Constitutional amendments in Türkiye are among the most significant legal and political processes in the Turkish constitutional system. A constitution is not an ordinary statute. It establishes the identity of the State, organizes public power, protects fundamental rights and defines the legal limits of legislative, executive and judicial authority. For this reason, constitutional amendment procedure is deliberately stricter than ordinary lawmaking.
The Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye regulates constitutional amendments mainly under Article 175. This provision sets out who may propose an amendment, how the proposal must be debated, what parliamentary majorities are required, when a referendum becomes mandatory or optional, and how the President of the Republic participates in the amendment process. Article 175 requires a written proposal by at least one-third of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, two debates in the Plenary, and adoption by a three-fifths majority of the total number of members by secret ballot.
However, constitutional amendment power is not unlimited. The Turkish Constitution also contains substantive limits. Articles 1, 2 and 3, which concern the republican form of the State, the fundamental characteristics of the Republic, the indivisible integrity of the State, the official language, flag, national anthem and capital, cannot be amended, nor can their amendment be proposed under Article 4.
This article explains the procedure and legal limits of constitutional amendments in Türkiye, focusing on Article 175, parliamentary majorities, referendum rules, presidential powers, unamendable provisions, Constitutional Court review and practical implications for Turkish constitutional law.
1. The Nature of Constitutional Amendment Power
Constitutional amendment power is a special form of legal authority. It allows the existing constitutional order to be changed without replacing the entire constitution. It is different from ordinary legislative power because ordinary laws are made within the Constitution, while constitutional amendments change the constitutional text itself.
In Türkiye, constitutional amendment power belongs to the constitutional organs and procedures defined by the Constitution. It is not an unlimited constituent power. The Grand National Assembly of Türkiye may initiate and adopt constitutional amendments only under the procedure established by Article 175. The President of the Republic has specific constitutional powers in the process, including returning an amendment law for reconsideration or submitting certain amendments to referendum.
This means that constitutional reform must comply with both procedural and substantive constitutional rules. A proposed amendment may be politically popular but legally invalid if it fails to meet the required parliamentary majority, violates the special procedural rules or targets unamendable provisions. Constitutional amendment power is therefore controlled by constitutional legality.
2. Why Constitutional Amendments Require Special Procedure
Ordinary laws can be amended or repealed through ordinary legislative procedure. Constitutional amendments, however, require heightened procedural safeguards because they affect the highest legal norm of the State. If a constitution could be changed by a simple majority in the same manner as ordinary legislation, constitutional supremacy would be weakened.
The Turkish amendment procedure reflects this concern. A constitutional amendment requires a written proposal by a significant number of deputies, repeated deliberation, secret ballot and qualified majority. In certain circumstances, the people participate directly through referendum. These requirements are intended to ensure seriousness, deliberation, democratic legitimacy and institutional stability.
Constitutional amendments may affect fundamental rights, the system of government, judicial organization, election rules, administrative structure, individual application, presidential powers, parliamentary oversight and the relationship between domestic law and international obligations. Because of these effects, the amendment process must balance flexibility and stability.
A constitution that can never be amended may become outdated. But a constitution that can be amended too easily may fail to provide legal certainty. Article 175 seeks to create a middle path by allowing constitutional reform while imposing procedural thresholds and democratic safeguards.
3. Proposal Stage: Who May Propose a Constitutional Amendment?
The first stage of constitutional amendment is proposal. Article 175 provides that an amendment to the Constitution must be proposed in writing by at least one-third of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye.
This requirement is significant. It prevents individual deputies or small political groups from initiating constitutional amendment bills without broader parliamentary support. Since the Grand National Assembly has 600 members under the current constitutional structure, one-third corresponds to 200 deputies. The Constitution’s use of “total number of members” means the threshold is calculated based on the full membership of the Assembly, not merely the number of deputies attending a session.
The written proposal requirement also ensures legal clarity. Constitutional amendments must be presented in a formal legislative text. This allows deputies, political parties, experts, civil society, courts and the public to examine exactly which provisions are proposed to be changed and what legal consequences may follow.
At the proposal stage, legal drafting quality is critical. Constitutional amendment texts must be clear, coherent and compatible with the rest of the Constitution. Poorly drafted amendments may create interpretive conflicts, institutional uncertainty and litigation problems.
4. Parliamentary Deliberation: Two Debates in the Plenary
Article 175 requires constitutional amendment bills to be debated twice in the Plenary of the Grand National Assembly. This requirement distinguishes constitutional amendments from ordinary legislative procedures and reinforces deliberative constitutionalism.
The purpose of two debates is to prevent hasty constitutional change. A constitution should not be amended through sudden political reaction or temporary majority pressure. Repeated deliberation gives deputies time to examine the amendment, consider objections, evaluate legal consequences and make political decisions with greater seriousness.
The two-debate requirement also supports transparency. Constitutional amendment proposals usually affect the whole political and legal system. Public debate, parliamentary committee work, expert analysis and political negotiation may occur between or around the Plenary debates.
The quality of deliberation is particularly important in amendments concerning fundamental rights, judicial independence, electoral rules, presidential powers, parliamentary structure or the Constitutional Court. Such amendments may reshape the balance of powers and individual protections for many years.
5. Voting Requirement: Three-Fifths Majority and Secret Ballot
A constitutional amendment bill must be adopted by at least a three-fifths majority of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly through secret ballot. With 600 deputies, the three-fifths threshold corresponds to 360 votes.
The secret ballot requirement is constitutionally important. It seeks to ensure that deputies vote according to constitutional responsibility and personal judgment, without direct pressure from political parties, government actors or public authorities. Because constitutional amendments concern the foundational legal order, the Constitution gives special importance to the free vote of deputies.
The three-fifths majority is the minimum adoption threshold. If a proposed amendment receives fewer than three-fifths of the total number of deputies, it cannot be adopted. If it receives at least three-fifths but less than two-thirds, referendum consequences arise. If it receives at least two-thirds, the President may still submit the amendment to referendum, but the referendum is not always mandatory.
This majority system reflects a graded model of legitimacy. The higher the parliamentary support, the more flexible the next stage becomes. The lower but still constitutionally sufficient majority requires direct popular approval through referendum.
6. The President’s Power to Return an Amendment Law
After a constitutional amendment law is adopted by Parliament, the President of the Republic may send it back to the Grand National Assembly for reconsideration. Article 175 expressly recognizes this power. If the Assembly readopts the returned amendment without any change by a two-thirds majority of the total number of members, the President may submit the law to referendum.
The return power is an important constitutional control mechanism. It allows the President to request reconsideration of constitutional amendments that may be politically, legally or institutionally controversial. However, it does not give the President an absolute veto. Parliament may insist on the amendment by readopting it with the required majority.
This mechanism reflects the interaction between legislative authority and presidential review. Constitutional amendment power primarily belongs to Parliament and, where required, the people through referendum. The President participates in the process but cannot permanently block a properly adopted amendment if Parliament maintains the necessary majority and the constitutional referendum rules are followed.
7. Mandatory Referendum: Three-Fifths to Less Than Two-Thirds
If a constitutional amendment law is adopted by at least three-fifths but less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Assembly and is not sent back by the President for reconsideration, it must be published in the Official Gazette and submitted to referendum.
This is the mandatory referendum zone. In the current 600-member Assembly, it corresponds to amendments adopted by at least 360 but fewer than 400 votes.
The logic is clear. A constitutional amendment supported by a qualified parliamentary majority but not by a two-thirds supermajority requires direct approval from the electorate. This strengthens democratic legitimacy and prevents major constitutional changes from being made solely by a relatively narrow parliamentary majority.
The referendum requirement also gives citizens direct participation in constitutional change. Because the Constitution belongs to the whole political community, certain amendments must be approved not only by representatives but also by voters.
8. Optional Referendum: Two-Thirds Majority and Presidential Discretion
If a constitutional amendment law is adopted by a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly, the President of the Republic may submit the law or certain articles deemed necessary to referendum. If the amendment or relevant articles are not submitted to referendum, they are published in the Official Gazette.
In the current Assembly, the two-thirds threshold corresponds to 400 votes. A two-thirds majority reflects broad parliamentary consensus. Therefore, referendum is not mandatory in every case. However, the President may still choose to submit the amendment to the people.
This optional referendum mechanism may be important where an amendment has broad parliamentary support but remains politically sensitive. It allows the President to seek direct democratic approval where constitutional legitimacy would benefit from public confirmation.
The President’s power to submit only certain articles to referendum also matters. Some amendment packages contain multiple provisions. The Assembly must decide which provisions will be voted together and which will be voted individually if the amendment is submitted to referendum.
9. Referendum Approval and Entry into Force
Where a constitutional amendment is submitted to referendum, it enters into force only if more than half of the valid votes cast are affirmative. Article 175 expressly provides that entry into force of constitutional amendment laws submitted to referendum requires the affirmative vote of more than half of valid votes.
This rule means that referendum approval is based on valid votes cast, not on the total number of registered voters. The Constitution also provides that measures, including fines, shall be taken by law to secure participation in referenda, general elections, by-elections and local elections.
Referendum campaigns may have major constitutional significance. Voters must understand the amendment text, its effects and its relationship with the existing constitutional order. For this reason, clarity and transparency are especially important when constitutional amendments are presented to the public.
A referendum is not merely a political event. It is a constitutional decision-making process that may change the supreme legal norm of the State.
10. Unamendable Provisions: Article 4
The most important substantive legal limit on constitutional amendments is Article 4. It provides that the provision of Article 1 regarding the republican form of the State, the characteristics of the Republic in Article 2 and the provisions of Article 3 cannot be amended, nor can their amendment be proposed.
This creates a constitutional core. The Grand National Assembly cannot lawfully propose or adopt an amendment that changes the republican form of the State, the democratic, secular and social rule-of-law character of the Republic, the indivisible integrity of the State, the official language, flag, national anthem or capital.
The prohibition is strict because it covers both amendment and proposal. Therefore, the constitutional barrier arises at the earliest stage. A proposal targeting these provisions would itself be constitutionally prohibited.
The unamendable provisions reflect the constitutional identity of Türkiye. They show that the amendment power is a limited constituted power, not an unlimited power to create an entirely new constitutional order.
11. Article 1: The Republican Form of the State
Article 1 states that the State of Türkiye is a Republic. This provision is protected against amendment by Article 4.
The republican form of the State means that sovereignty is not based on monarchy, dynasty or hereditary authority. It is exercised through constitutional institutions and democratic legitimacy. It also reflects the foundational political identity of the modern Turkish State.
Any amendment seeking to abolish the Republic or replace it with a monarchy or another non-republican structure would clearly violate Article 4. But the practical meaning of the republican principle may also arise in more complex debates about democratic legitimacy, accountability, public interest and the constitutional organization of state power.
12. Article 2: Characteristics of the Republic
Article 2 defines the Republic of Türkiye as a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law, respecting human rights, loyal to Atatürk nationalism and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble. These characteristics are protected by Article 4.
This provision is one of the most important constitutional identity clauses in Turkish law. It protects democracy, secularism, social state, rule of law and human rights respect as foundational principles.
The protection of Article 2 means that constitutional amendments cannot abolish or empty these principles. For example, an amendment that openly eliminates judicial review, destroys fundamental rights protection or removes the secular character of the State would raise serious constitutional concerns under Article 4.
The difficulty lies in borderline cases. A constitutional amendment may not expressly repeal Article 2, but it may affect the practical operation of democracy, rule of law or separation of powers. Turkish constitutional theory and Constitutional Court review have long debated how far substantive review may go in such cases.
13. Article 3: Indivisible Integrity, Language, Flag, Anthem and Capital
Article 3 provides that the State of Türkiye, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity; its language is Turkish; its flag is the white crescent and star on a red background; its national anthem is the Independence March; and its capital is Ankara. Article 4 protects these provisions from amendment or proposal.
This protection concerns the symbolic, territorial and institutional identity of the State. Amendments seeking to change the official language, flag, national anthem or capital are constitutionally prohibited. Similarly, amendments targeting the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory and nation would fall within the prohibition.
Article 3 therefore functions as a legal boundary for constitutional amendment proposals relating to state identity, territorial unity and official symbols.
14. Formal Review by the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court has a specific role in reviewing constitutional amendments. Article 148 provides that constitutional amendments shall be examined and verified only with regard to form. It further states that verification of constitutional amendments is restricted to whether the requisite majorities were obtained for proposal and voting, and whether the prohibition on debates under expedited procedure was observed.
This is an important limitation. Unlike ordinary laws, which may be reviewed by the Constitutional Court in both form and substance, constitutional amendments are subject only to formal review according to the text of Article 148. The Court does not have a general constitutional mandate to review every policy choice contained in an amendment.
However, formal review is still significant. If the amendment was not proposed by the required number of deputies, if the required voting majority was not obtained, or if the expedited procedure prohibition was violated, the Constitutional Court may annul the amendment for formal defect.
Applications for annulment based on formal defect must be made within ten days from the date of promulgation, and may be brought by the President of the Republic or one-fifth of the members of the Grand National Assembly.
15. Priority Examination and Decision-Making by the Constitutional Court
The Constitution provides that applications for annulment on grounds of formal defect shall be examined and decided with priority by the Constitutional Court. This priority is logical because constitutional amendments may affect the entire legal system. If there is a formal defect, uncertainty should be resolved quickly.
Article 149 also provides that annulment of constitutional amendments requires a two-thirds majority of members attending the meeting of the Constitutional Court. This high decision-making threshold reflects the seriousness of annulling a constitutional amendment.
The Constitutional Court’s role in amendment review is therefore narrow but important. It protects the procedural integrity of constitutional change. It ensures that amendment power is exercised through the constitutionally required process, not through ordinary or defective legislative action.
16. Procedural Limits and Substantive Limits
The Turkish amendment system contains both procedural and substantive limits.
Procedural limits are found mainly in Article 175 and Article 148. These include written proposal by at least one-third of deputies, two Plenary debates, secret ballot, three-fifths adoption threshold, referendum rules, presidential reconsideration power and formal review by the Constitutional Court.
Substantive limits are found mainly in Article 4, which protects Articles 1, 2 and 3 from amendment or proposal. These limits protect the constitutional identity of the Republic.
The relationship between procedural and substantive limits is a central issue in Turkish constitutional law. The text of Article 148 limits Constitutional Court review of constitutional amendments to form. Article 4, however, creates substantive unamendability. This raises an important legal question: how should violations of Article 4 be controlled if constitutional amendments are reviewable only as to form?
In practice, this question has been one of the most debated issues in Turkish constitutional doctrine. A cautious approach is to say that Article 4 creates a binding constitutional duty on Parliament not to propose or adopt amendments targeting protected provisions, while Article 148 textually limits the Constitutional Court’s review to formal matters. The precise scope of judicial control depends on Constitutional Court jurisprudence and the constitutional interpretation adopted in specific cases.
17. Constitutional Amendments and Fundamental Rights
Constitutional amendments may directly affect fundamental rights and freedoms. They may expand rights, restrict rights, introduce new remedies, change judicial institutions or alter the balance between public power and individuals.
For example, the 2010 constitutional amendments introduced individual application to the Constitutional Court, and Article 148 now allows everyone to apply to the Constitutional Court alleging violation by public authorities of fundamental rights and freedoms within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights and guaranteed by the Constitution, after exhaustion of ordinary remedies.
This shows that constitutional amendments can strengthen rights protection. However, amendments may also raise concerns if they weaken judicial independence, reduce access to remedies or restrict rights without sufficient safeguards.
A rights-sensitive constitutional amendment process should evaluate the impact of proposed changes on human dignity, equality, fair trial, property, expression, privacy, personal liberty and effective remedy. Constitutional change should not be treated only as institutional design; it may directly affect individuals.
18. Constitutional Amendments and the System of Government
Constitutional amendments may also transform the system of government. The 2017 amendments are the most important recent example. They changed the executive structure by providing that executive power and function are exercised and carried out by the President of the Republic in conformity with the Constitution and laws, and they also amended the judiciary clause to state that judicial power is exercised by independent and impartial courts.
The same reform repealed several provisions concerning the Council of Ministers, including provisions on formation, vote of confidence and political responsibility.
Such amendments demonstrate the transformative potential of constitutional amendment power. A constitutional amendment can reshape executive authority, parliamentary oversight, judicial organization and administrative structure. For this reason, legal analysis of constitutional amendment proposals must consider their systemic effects, not only their textual wording.
19. Constitutional Referenda and Democratic Legitimacy
Referenda provide direct democratic legitimacy to constitutional amendments. In Türkiye, referenda become mandatory for amendments adopted by at least three-fifths but less than two-thirds of the total number of deputies, unless the proposal is returned and then treated under the relevant constitutional rules. For amendments adopted by two-thirds, referendum may be optional at the President’s discretion.
A referendum gives voters the final say on certain constitutional changes. However, democratic legitimacy requires more than a ballot. The amendment text must be clear, public debate must be meaningful and voters must understand the legal consequences of the proposed changes.
Complex amendment packages may create difficulties if voters support some provisions but oppose others. Article 175 addresses this by requiring the Grand National Assembly to decide which provisions shall be submitted to referendum together and which shall be submitted individually when an amendment law is submitted to referendum.
This rule has practical importance because it affects voter choice. Submitting unrelated provisions together may force voters to accept or reject a package as a whole. Separate voting may provide clearer democratic consent for each constitutional change.
20. Legal Certainty and Constitutional Stability
Constitutional amendments must also be evaluated from the perspective of legal certainty. A constitution provides stability for public institutions, individuals and businesses. Frequent or unclear amendments may create legal uncertainty.
Legal certainty requires that constitutional texts be coherent, understandable and compatible with the rest of the legal system. Amendments should avoid contradictions, ambiguous concepts and incomplete transitional rules. Where amendments affect existing institutions, implementation provisions are crucial.
For example, amendments changing the system of government, court structure or administrative organization require transitional rules to determine when new provisions enter into force, how existing institutions continue and how pending proceedings are handled. Without such rules, constitutional reform may create legal confusion.
Good constitutional drafting therefore requires attention not only to political objectives but also to legal technique.
21. Practical Importance for Lawyers, Citizens and Businesses
Constitutional amendments affect legal practice directly. Lawyers must understand amendment procedure because constitutional changes may alter litigation strategy, judicial remedies, administrative powers, rights protection and court jurisdiction.
For citizens, constitutional amendments may affect voting rights, fundamental freedoms, access to justice, individual application, social rights and the functioning of democratic institutions. For businesses and investors, amendments may influence legal certainty, property protection, regulatory authority, judicial review and administrative organization.
A lawyer analyzing a constitutional amendment should ask several questions. Was the proposal made by the required number of deputies? Were the two Plenary debates held? Was the vote secret? Was the three-fifths or two-thirds threshold met? Did the President return the amendment or submit it to referendum? Was referendum approval required? Does the amendment touch unamendable provisions? Does it affect fundamental rights or judicial independence? Are transitional rules sufficient?
These questions show that constitutional amendment law is not only theoretical. It has practical consequences for every branch of Turkish law.
Conclusion
Constitutional amendments in Türkiye are governed by a strict legal framework designed to balance constitutional flexibility with constitutional stability. Article 175 regulates the amendment procedure by requiring a written proposal by at least one-third of the total number of deputies, two Plenary debates, secret ballot and adoption by at least three-fifths of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly. Depending on the voting majority and presidential decision, a constitutional amendment may be subject to mandatory or optional referendum.
The President of the Republic plays an important role by returning amendment laws for reconsideration or submitting certain amendments to referendum. Referendum approval requires more than half of the valid votes cast. Parliament must also decide how provisions will be grouped if they are submitted to referendum.
The amendment power is not unlimited. Article 4 protects Articles 1, 2 and 3 from amendment and even from proposal. These provisions preserve the republican form of the State, the democratic, secular and social rule-of-law character of the Republic, human rights respect, the indivisible integrity of the State, the official language, flag, national anthem and capital.
The Constitutional Court’s review of constitutional amendments is textually limited to formal matters under Article 148. It verifies whether the required proposal and voting majorities were obtained and whether the prohibition on expedited procedure was respected. Applications based on formal defect are subject to strict time limits and priority examination.
For legal practitioners, constitutional amendment law requires careful attention to procedure, institutional effects, substantive limits and rights implications. A constitutional amendment may reshape the entire legal system. Therefore, it must be drafted, debated, adopted and reviewed with the seriousness required by constitutional supremacy.
Ultimately, constitutional amendments in Türkiye are legitimate only when they comply with constitutional procedure, respect legal limits and preserve the fundamental identity of the constitutional order. The amendment process is not merely a political tool; it is a constitutional mechanism governed by law.
FAQ: Constitutional Amendments in Türkiye
What is the main constitutional provision governing amendments in Türkiye?
The main provision is Article 175 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye. It regulates proposal, parliamentary debates, voting thresholds, referendum rules and the President’s role.
Who may propose a constitutional amendment in Türkiye?
A constitutional amendment must be proposed in writing by at least one-third of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye.
How many votes are required to adopt a constitutional amendment?
A constitutional amendment requires at least a three-fifths majority of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly by secret ballot.
When is a constitutional referendum mandatory?
A referendum is mandatory when an amendment is adopted by at least three-fifths but less than two-thirds of the total number of deputies and is not returned by the President for reconsideration.
When is a referendum optional?
If an amendment is adopted by a two-thirds majority, the President may submit the amendment or certain articles to referendum, but referendum is not automatically mandatory.
What majority is required in a referendum?
A constitutional amendment submitted to referendum enters into force if more than half of the valid votes cast are affirmative.
Can every constitutional provision be amended?
No. Article 4 provides that Articles 1, 2 and 3 cannot be amended, nor can their amendment be proposed.
What are the unamendable provisions of the Turkish Constitution?
They include the republican form of the State, the characteristics of the Republic, the indivisible integrity of the State, the official language, the flag, the national anthem and the capital.
Can the Constitutional Court review constitutional amendments?
Yes, but Article 148 limits review of constitutional amendments to formal matters, such as proposal and voting majorities and the prohibition of expedited procedure.
Why are constitutional amendment rules important?
They protect constitutional supremacy, legal certainty, democratic legitimacy and the fundamental identity of the State. They ensure that constitutional change occurs through a serious and legally controlled process.
Yanıt yok