Khaberni - The topic of imprisoning debtors has become a widely debated issue between supporters who see it as a protection for human dignity, and opponents who see it as an infringement on the creditor's rights. The danger became apparent following the approval of the amendments, which ruled against the imprisonment of debtors without accompanying alternative enforcement measures. Moreover, the debate did not stop at the pros and cons of imprisoning debtors but also extended to the extent of the amendment's alignment with the principles upheld by the Constitution, which aim to maintain the balance between the parties of the legal relationship and individuals in society.
Therefore, the amendment of the Enforcement Law, specifically the clause concerning the non-imprisonment of debtors, raises a set of questions about its conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, which cannot be interpreted in isolation from it. Foremost among these is the constitutional principle that stipulates equality among citizens before the law. It is stated in the Constitution in Article (6/1): “Jordanians are equal before the law, with no discrimination among them in rights and duties…” When the legislature granted debtors a privilege over creditors through the Enforcement Law in Article (22), and provided debtors protection from imprisonment without presenting alternative enforcement mechanisms to safeguard the creditor’s right, it could lead to an imbalance in legal protection between the two parties. Therefore, there may be potential legislative discrimination between the debtor and the creditor, especially since this discrimination was not based on an objective justification that achieves equality before the law, nor was it supported by sufficient alternatives.
Moreover, the effects of this amendment extend beyond the individual relationship between the creditor and the debtor, and could reflect on the stability of transactions and family ties, violating another principle of the Constitution, specified in Article (6/4), which relates to the stability of the family, considered the basis of Jordanian society, stating: “The family is the basis of society… the law preserves its legitimate entity and strengthens its bonds and values.” The violation consists of undermining the bonds and stability of the family, leading to consequences arising from the amendment of the Enforcement Law, which practically results in direct economic damages affecting the creditor and his family.
In this context, when delving into constitutional Article (6/7) relating to promoting the values of citizenship, which states: “The state ensures the promotion of citizenship values…” the amendment that occurred in the Enforcement Law raises a fundamental problem reaching the balance of justice and right, which must be respected when discussing citizenship, fundamentally based on equality in rights and duties. Therefore, the decline in trust in justice may generate a feeling of disconnection from this nation, causing an imbalance in the relationship between the individual and the state, as a result of placing them in a legally weaker position than the debtor, even though they are the rightful party in terms of legal basis, while the debtor's side is favored in a manner that disrupts the principle of balance and fairness.
It is also worth noting, there are a number of challenges facing the Jordanian society, which affect its stability and cohesion, and impact the sense of belonging among its members to their homeland and its institutions. In this context, the legislative amendments adopted by some parties require a high degree of caution in anticipating their effects on society, ensuring the preservation of public trust in state institutions, and enhancing the ties between the citizen and the land and the state. Hence, matters that touch the core of Jordanian society should be viewed from different dimensions; ensuring a balance between the requirements of legislative reform and maintaining community stability and enhancing the sense of belonging.
