Representative Firas Hamdan announced, through his account on the “X” platform, that he and 9 representatives had submitted an appeal before the Constitutional Council against Law No. 49/2026 regarding subjecting a category of contractors to the retirement plan, requesting that its effect be suspended until its constitutionality is decided.
Hamdan said that he filed the appeal along with MPs Melhem Khalaf, Salim Al-Sayegh, Najat Aoun Saliba, Mark Daou, Ibrahim Mneimneh, Wadah Al-Sadiq, Haider Nasser, Michel Al-Duwaihy and Cynthia Zarazir.
He explained that the review stems, according to its sponsors, from ensuring respect for the constitution and the principles of equality and equal opportunity, and for treating the conditions of contractors and treating them fairly within a sound legal and constitutional framework, away from creating discrimination between groups with similar job conditions.
Hamdan stressed that fairness to contractors and securing their retirement and social rights is a “legitimate right,” but he considered that achieving this goal must be achieved through clear, fair legislation that is compatible with the provisions of the Constitution, preserves acquired rights and does not lead to unjustified disparity between workers in public administrations.
He added that the representatives asked the Constitutional Council to suspend the effect of the law until it considers the review and decides on the constitutionality of its provisions in accordance with the rules.
The appeal comes about a month after the House of Representatives approved, in the session of July 15, 2026, the law proposal aimed at subjecting contractors in the Ministry of Information to the retirement plan, after it was re-voted by call and received the support of 61 deputies, against the objection of 30.
The formula approved by the Council stipulated the application of the provisions of the retirement and dismissal system to contractors whose contracts were concluded or approved by the Civil Service Council based on Decree No. 5240 issued on April 5, 2001, allowing them to benefit from the retirement pension or dismissal compensation in accordance with the conditions applied to permanent employees in public administrations, in addition to benefiting from the contributions of the State Employees Cooperative.
Hamdan was among the representatives who voted against the proposal when it was approved, along with a number of representatives participating today in the appeal, while he announced that day that his objection is not based on a refusal to give contractors retirement rights, but rather on his consideration that treating a specific category in isolation from other categories in a similar job situation may pose a problem related to equality among workers in state institutions.
The session to approve the law witnessed a parliamentary debate about the voting mechanism and the content of the proposal, and a trend emerged calling for addressing the conditions of contractors at the level of public administrations in a comprehensive manner instead of adopting legislation specific to each administration or category separately. Reports of the session that day stated that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam had expressed a desire to take back the proposal, before a number of representatives rejected it and voting on it continued.
On the other hand, Information Minister Paul Morcos defended the law after its approval, considering that it addresses a long-awaited humanitarian issue and secures the rights of contractors who have spent long years in service by granting them retirement rights similar to state employees.
Hence, the disagreement between the law’s supporters and opponents revolves around the mechanism for achieving fairness rather than the origin of the right to retirement. Its supporters believe that the contractors in question served the state for long periods without enjoying guarantees similar to those obtained by permanent employees, and therefore the law corrects a social and functional imbalance that has accumulated over years.
As for the appellants, they start from a different angle, as they consider that granting a retirement system and benefits to a specific category of contractors without setting a general standard that includes categories in similar legal and employment situations may pose a constitutional problem related to the principle of equality before the law.
This discussion gains greater importance due to the nature of employment in the Lebanese public sector, where a large number of contractors, wage earners, and workers with different legal forms work alongside permanent employees, which has led over the years to disparities in rights related to salaries, compensation, health coverage, end of service, and retirement.
The principle of equality is one of the foundations that the Constitutional Council returns to when considering contested laws. However, the existence of a difference in treatment between two groups does not automatically lead to the invalidation of the law, as the Council usually considers whether the distinction is based on objective and justified reasons related to the nature of each group and the goal intended by the legislator.
Accordingly, the essence of the current review will be related to the extent to which there are sufficient legal justifications to distinguish contractors covered by the law from other contractors in public administrations and institutions, and whether the mechanism adopted by the House of Representatives is consistent with the principle of equality and regularity of public service.
The representatives also requested that the law be temporarily suspended, a measure that the Constitutional Council has within its powers when it receives an appeal review, until it issues its final decision on the constitutionality of the contested text.
Submitting the appeal in itself does not mean invalidating the law, as the Constitutional Council begins studying the review from a formal standpoint and then the constitutional reasons raised therein, before making its decision either to dismiss the appeal and keep the law in force, or to invalidate the law in whole or in part if it is found to be in violation of the Constitution.
Hamdan and a number of representatives who signed the current review have previously participated in recent years in constitutional challenges to various laws, including laws related to the budget, service extension, and some general legislation, which makes resorting to the Constitutional Council a frequent part of the tools used by this parliamentary group to review legislation that it considers to contain constitutional violations.
Pending the position of the Constitutional Council on the request to suspend the effect and then on the basis of the appeal, the contractors’ file moves from a parliamentary debate about how to guarantee their rights to a constitutional test related to a broader question: Is it permissible to treat the retirement deprivation of a specific category by a special law, or does the principle of equality require that the treatment come within a more comprehensive system that defines uniform standards for all workers in similar job situations?
The reviewers confirm that they are not challenging the principle of granting contractors their rights, but rather the way in which the law dealt with these rights, while its supporters maintain that the approval of the retirement system for the category in question constitutes a correction for a delay that has lasted for years. Between the two positions, the floor now rests with the Constitutional Council, which will determine whether Law No. 49/2026 is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution or needs to be reconsidered.
