President Rumen Radev has made a bold move by referring the recent revisions to the Bulgarian Constitution to the Constitutional Court, citing concerns over their constitutionality and their potential impact on the country's governance. This action by the President has set the stage for a legal showdown, highlighting significant points of contention within the revised constitutional framework.

In a press release from the President's Office, Radev voiced his reservations about the recent amendments, stressing that they not only conflict with existing constitutional norms but also disrupt the delicate balance of power among state institutions. He particularly emphasized that these changes tread into the realm of a Grand National Assembly's jurisdiction, directly influencing the structure of state governance.

The revisions, passed on December 20 with the participation of 237 MPs, garnered support primarily from GERB-SDS, We Continue the Change - Democratic Bulgaria, and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), totaling 165 votes. However, opposition from 71 MPs, representing the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), Vazrazhdane, and There Is Such a People (TISP), highlighted dissent against these amendments.

The President's challenge specifically addresses key aspects of the revisions, including provisions granting dual citizens the right to hold positions as MPs and ministers. Additionally, the establishment of qualified majorities for state body leadership elections, the process for appointing a caretaker government, and term regulations for various legislative bodies have come under Radev's scrutiny.

Of significant concern to the President are the changes related to the judiciary, particularly the alterations in the appointment procedure for high-ranking judiciary officials. Radev contests these modifications, which allow for appointments without the requirement of a presidential decree, as they alter the traditional process of judicial appointments.

Highlighting procedural irregularities, Radev questions the swiftness and depth of discussions surrounding the amendments, arguing that the revisions were hastily passed without adequate deliberation. He points out the deviation from the standard protocol for constitutional amendments, stressing the need for comprehensive discussions or a prolonged voting process, which was not followed in this case.

This move by the President has triggered a legal debate, underscoring the complexities and potential repercussions of these constitutional changes.