At its meeting on October 2, 2026, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly reviewed the draft Law on the Issuance of Amended Legal Normative Documents, which is scheduled to be submitted to the National Assembly at its session opening in mid-October 2026.
Notably, this draft proposes allowing the government to issue decrees to temporarily adjust or amend provisions of the law in two specific cases.
Specifically, these would apply when urgent or critical situations arise that prevent the National Assembly from convening immediately, or to swiftly address technical issues arising from practical circumstances.
According to experts, from a state administration perspective, the Government’s desire is entirely understandable.
In particular, against the backdrop of a volatile global geopolitical landscape marked by natural disasters and a global economic crisis, the National Assembly’s legislative process—even when using expedited procedures—can still result in a certain degree of delay.
The government’s lack of a rapid-response tool could reduce the effectiveness of the executive branch’s management of economic and social affairs.
When unforeseeable situations arise in practice, even a very brief policy delay can cause significant damage to the economy.
However, this proposal immediately raised deep concerns regarding legal principles and the mechanism for the separation of powers within the state apparatus.
This is because, in the legal system of any rule-of-law state, the Constitution holds the supreme position, followed by laws enacted by the National Assembly, and finally subordinate legal documents such as Decrees or Circulars…
This hierarchy clearly stipulates that lower-level legal documents exist to specify and implement higher-level ones, and the reverse is absolutely not permitted.
According to experts, if a precedent is set allowing a Decree to amend a Law on grounds of urgency, the boundaries between different levels of legal documents will be blurred, paving the way for other dangerous exceptions in the future.
Furthermore, aside from the risk of disrupting the legal system, the concepts of “urgency” or “technical issues” in the current draft still lack strict quantitative criteria.
The absence of clear standards makes it very easy to abuse the emergency mechanism to “circumvent” the National Assembly’s review processes or the public consultation process.
In administrative work, the pressure to complete tasks or obstacles arising in management issues can easily lead ministries and agencies to always view their own problems as “urgent” situations.
In such cases, rather than serving merely as a special contingency tool, the emergency mechanism risks becoming a familiar “shortcut” to bypass the legislative branch’s strict scrutiny.
Consequently, the legal repercussions for society present an extremely difficult problem to solve. Suppose a Decree deemed “urgent” is issued and takes effect immediately, altering regulations on related matters.
In that case, businesses and citizens would be forced to adjust their entire operational plans and conduct transactions based on that new document.
If, a few months later, the National Assembly convenes and rejects this Decree or demands revisions, who will bear the losses, the costs of canceled contracts, or the resulting expenses?
Such disruptions not only cause direct harm to the parties involved but also significantly undermine the predictability and stability of the investment environment.
The core principle of the rule of law is the separation, coordination, and checks and balances among the branches of government.
When the Executive Branch is granted the authority to arbitrarily “rewrite” regulations enacted by the National Assembly, the effectiveness of the system of checks and balances is severely undermined whenever obstacles arise.
Upholding the dignity of the Constitution and the principle of the hierarchy of laws is a foundation that cannot be compromised for any short-term flexibility.
Trà My – Thoibao.de
