The doctrine of due process permeates the systematics of legal proceedings and procedures, establishing internal logic and consistency in the exercise of public authority and the realization of human rights. Due process ensures the procedural democratic legitimacy of public authority by setting standards for the adoption of lawful and legitimate decisions. It equally affects the order of public administration and the administration of justice.

The article reveals the nature of the constitutional process through the prism of legal principles permeated by the idea of protecting human rights. In this context, the article examines the extent to which violations of the principles of due process affect the determination of the legality of legal acts. It analyses the extent to which such violations are substantial enough to render acts unlawful, what criteria should be taken as a basis, and to what extent they indicate substantial violations. This is considered in the context of constitutional values and the state’s institutional capacity, particularly in conditions of extraordinary legal regimes.

Within the discussion of “politicization – justification”, the principles of democratic legitimacy in constitutional justice, linked to substantive and procedural legal requirements, were revealed. The doctrine of due process plays an important role in overcoming legal uncertainty, as the application of formal and value-based criteria eliminates shortcomings associated with legislative oversight or the improper application of the law. A correct interpretation of human rights in light of the principles of law and due process enables the constitutional procedural guarantees of fundamental individual rights to acquire content. In turn, this sets qualitative benchmarks for the activities of public administration and law enforcement agencies, whose actions must be bound by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The legal logic underlying due process determines the legitimate grounds for the procedural activities of officials and judges. Finally, it provides a reliable legal basis for judicial law, i.e., ensuring the proper organization of courts and the formation of judicial case law grounded in democratic legitimacy and fundamental principles of law, while respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Understanding the nature of the constitutional process through the prism of human rights imbues it with value and lays the foundation for a basic understanding of its object, principles, stages, procedural features, and the procedure for resolving constitutional disputes through constitutional justice acts. Unlike issues of constitutional justice organization, the constitutional process expresses the procedural principles of democratic foundations for the implementation of constituent power and the democratic legitimacy of constitutional justice itself. Constitutional justice is implemented in constituent power through the protection of fundamental eternal values, as expressed in the clause in Article 157 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as well as the inviolability of the constitutional order.

The requirements of due process permeate the principles, stages, and procedure for the consideration of cases by the Constitutional Court, allowing them to be specified in the Rules of Procedure in the event of a “silence” of the law. Since the majority of cases before the Constitutional Court involve constitutional complaints, it is important to emphasize constitutional arguments in resolving issues related to freedom, equality, and human dignity.

1. Denning A, The Due Process of Law (Butterworths 1980) https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o so/9780406176080.001.0001.
2. Hesse K, Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C. F. Müller 1977).
3. Rawls J, Political Liberalism (2nd ed., Columbia University Press 1996).
4. Tsebelis G, Changing the Rules. Constitutional Amendments in Democracies (Cambridge University Press 2025) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009597234.
5. Savchyn M, Konstytutsiina yustytsiia ta zabezpechennia konstytutsiinoho poriadku: 2005–2020 (RIK-U 2020) (in Ukrainian).
6. Shevchuk S, Osnovy konstytutsiinoi yurysprudentsii: navchalnyi posibnyk (Referat 2000) (in Ukrainian).
7. Stefanchuk R, Petryshyn O, Barabash Yu (redkol), Konstytutsiia Ukrainy: naukovopraktychnyi komentar (Pravo 2024) (in Ukrainian).
8. Zelenko H (red), Instytutsiina (ne)spromozhnist derzhavy v Ukraini: yak rozirvaty zamknene kolo (IPiEnD im. I. F. Kurasa NAN Ukrainy 2025) (in Ukrainian).
9. Albert R, ‘Counterconstitutionalism’ [2008] 31 Dalhousie Law Journal L.J. 47–48.
10. Albert R, ‘How unwritten constitutional norms change written constitutions’ [2015] 38(2) Dublin University Law Journal 387–418.
11. Barak A, ‘Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments’ 3(44) [2011] Israel Law Review 321–341 doi:10.1017/S0021223700018082.
12. Colón-Ríos J I, ‘A new Typology of Judicial Review of legislation’ [2014]3(2) Global Constitutionalism 143–169 doi:10.1017/S2045381714000033.
13. Ramraj V V, ‘Four models of due process’ [2004] 2(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law 492 https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/2.3.492.
14. Scheppele K L, ‘Constitutional Negotiations: Political Contexts of Judicial Activism in PostSoviet Europe: Political Contexts of Judicial Activism in Post-Soviet Europe’ [2003] 18(1) International Sociology 219–238 https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018001012.
15. Yablon Ch M, ‘Inherent Judiciary Authority: A Study in Creative Ambiguity’ [2022] 3(43) Cardozo Law Review 1043.
16. Gorshenev V, ‘Teorija juridicheskogo processa kak kompleksnoe nauchnoe obrazovanie’ [1986] 17 Problemy socialisticheskoj zakonnosti 3–7 (in Russian).
17. Onishchuk M, Savchyn M, ‘Priama diia Konstytutsii ta implementatsiia yii polozhen v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi’ [2020] 2(31) Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy 6 (in Ukrainian).
18. Savchyn M, ‘Emotsiinist ta ratsionalnist u konteksti suchasnoho konstytutsionalizmu’ [2015] 1–2 Filosofiia prava i zahalna teoriia prava 184–185 (in Ukrainian).
19. Savchyn M, ‘Instytutsiina spromozhnist derzhavy ta prava liudyny’ [2019] 26(3) Visnyk Natsionalnoi Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 43–61 (in Ukrainian).
20. Terletskyi D, ‘Efektyvnist konstytutsiinoi skarhy yak zasobu yurydychnoho zakhystu konstytutsiinykh prav osoby’ [2019] 147 Problemy zakonnosti 23 (in Ukrainian). Theses 21. Roznai Y, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: A Study of the Nature and Limits of Constitutional Amendment Powers (PhD thesis, 2014).
22. Berchenko H, ‘Konstytutsiia yak akt ustanovchoi vlady’ (dys d-ra yuryd nauk, 2024) (in Ukrainian).
23. Yezerov A, ‘Konstytutsiina skarha i vykliuchni obstavyny dlia perehliadu sprav’ (03.01.2020) (data zvernennia 15.02.2026) (in Ukrainian).