Can the Parliament process constitutional reform initiatives applying the procedures of constitutional reform and abbreviated legislative procedures simultaneously? More specifically, can it be considered that the method of single reading and the urgent procedure are adequate for processing the revision of the Constitution? In the decision ATC 9/2012 the Constitutional Court seems to have embraced the thesis of procedural simultaneity, according to which the procedures of constitutional reform could be applied transversally along with the legislative techniques of single reading and urgency. However, making a systematic interpretation of constitutional and parliamentary rules governing the lawmaking process, it might be argued that these kind of abbreviates procedures act as procedural limits in the parliamentary processing of the constitutional revision.
procedural limits of the constitutional reform; abbreviated legislative procedures; single reading method; urgent procedure; control of constitutionality of the constitutional reform