When regulating constitutional rights and freedoms, the legislator exercises discretion by choosing between the available alternatives to establish legal regulations that enable exercising and protecting them. While doing so, the legislator seeks to strike a balance between rights and freedoms, in a manner that guarantees the public interest. The constitutions have established set controls to ensure that the essence of constitutional rights and freedoms is maintained and that their fundamentals are not violated. Since the constitutional judiciary maintains the provisions of the constitution, this research focuses on the Jordanian constitutional judiciary’s oversight of the discretionary powers exercised by the legislator when regulating the constitutional rights and freedoms and comparing it with the Egyptian constitutional judiciary. The research tackles the following question: what is the position of the Jordanian constitutional judiciary regarding oversight of the discretionary powers exercised by the legislator when regulating constitutional rights and freedoms compared to the Egyptian counterpart? The research adopts a comparative; analytical; and descriptive approach to answer the research question.

The research concludes a number of results; the most important of which is that the Egyptian and Jordanian constitutional judiciaries have both monitored the violations of objective controls committed by the legislator when exercising the discretional powers to regulate the constitutional rights and freedoms. The research also traces features of control over legislative omissions and the absence of rulings related to legislative deviation in the Jordanian constitutional judiciary; in contrast to the Egyptian counterpart, which has exercised control over legislative omission and deviation. The research makes a set of recommendations, most notably extending the Jordanian constitutional judiciary’s control over legislative omission and deviation, making use of comparative judicial experiences