When the constitutional judge rules that a law is unconstitutional، he fills the text by adding something that complements it or replacing the part that violates the constitution with another text that is more compatible with the provisions of the constitution، provided that the constitutional judge does not deviate from the basic goal that the legislator wanted.
Substitutionary rulings are defined as the constitutional judge issuing rulings to cancel and exclude a rule that violates the Constitution and replace it with another rule that is more consistent with its rulings.
The Federal Supreme Court has a pioneering and new experience in following the substitutionary approach in its rulings، as it issues substitutionary rulings by replacing one text with another without ruling that the entire law is unconstitutional
In this study, we have used the comparative analytical approach, through reviewing, analyzing, discussing and commenting on the rulings of the constitutional judiciary, in order to arrive at the position of comparative law on substitutionary rulings, namely the Arab Republic of Egypt, within a framework of comparison between the applications of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt and the applications of the Federal Supreme Court in Iraq regarding substitutionary rulings.