Art. 160 BV grants members of Parliament and other important actors the right to propose new laws and amendments. This provision is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy in Switzerland.
Paragraph 1 governs the right of initiative (right to launch new business). Entitled are all National Councillors and Councillors of States individually, the parliamentary groups (political parties in Parliament), the parliamentary committees and all 26 cantons. They can, for example, submit a parliamentary initiative to create a new environmental protection law or to amend an existing tax regulation.
Paragraph 2 grants the right to propose amendments to ongoing deliberations. When Parliament deliberates on a law, individual council members and the Federal Council can submit motions for amendment. Thus a National Councillor can, during deliberations on the budget, move to allocate more money for education.
The legal consequences are clear: Parliament must consider all initiatives and vote on all motions. Refusal is unconstitutional. However, there is no guarantee that the proposal will be adopted – this is decided by the democratic process.
These rights strengthen the separation of powers by ensuring that not only the Federal Council, but also Parliament can actively shape laws. They are an important counterweight to the government and enable elected representatives to bring the concerns of their constituents directly into Parliament.
Art. 160 BV differs from popular rights: While citizens can launch popular initiatives, this provision governs the internal design possibilities of Parliament.
No. 1 The constitutional anchoring of parliamentary initiative and motion rights in Art. 160 FC was accomplished within the framework of the total revision of the Federal Constitution of 1999. The provision transferred parliamentary practice that had existed since 1848 into the new Constitution and thereby codified established democratic participation rights (BBl 1997 I 1, 404). The constitutional legislator sought to expressly anchor parliamentary instruments for policy-making at the constitutional level and thereby underscore their fundamental significance for the Swiss parliamentary system.
No. 2 The distinction between the right of initiative (para. 1) and the right of motion (para. 2) was already established in the old Federal Constitution and was deliberately maintained during the update. While the right of initiative enables the launching of new business, the right of motion relates to the co-shaping of proceedings already pending. This division reflects the different phases of the parliamentary legislative process.
No. 3 Art. 160 FC stands in Chapter 2 of Title 5 on the Federal Authorities and is part of the provisions on the Federal Assembly (Art. 148–173 FC). The provision forms, together with → Art. 161 FC (prohibition of instructions) and → Art. 162 FC (immunity), the constitutional foundation for the independence of parliamentary activity. In the context of the principle of separation of powers (→ Art. 144 FC), Art. 160 FC secures legislative initiative competence vis-à-vis the executive.
No. 4 The implementing provisions are found in the Parliament Act (ParlA, SR 171.10), particularly in Art. 107–136 ParlA for parliamentary initiatives, motions and postulates. The relationship to the political rights of citizens (→ Art. 136–142 FC) is complementary: While the popular initiative emanates directly from the people, Art. 160 FC enables elected representatives and institutional actors to initiate legislative processes.
No. 5Entities entitled to initiative (para. 1): The circle of entities entitled to initiative comprises four categories:
Each individual member of a council (individual initiative)
Each parliamentary group as a parliamentary association (parliamentary group initiative)
Each parliamentary committee (committee initiative)
Each canton (cantonal initiative)
The right of initiative belongs to these actors independently and autonomously from each other. A minimum number of supporters is not prescribed by constitutional law, but may be regulated by statute.
No. 6Entities entitled to motion (para. 2): The right of motion on pending business belongs to only two categories:
Members of councils
The Federal Council as a collegiate body
It is noteworthy that parliamentary groups, committees and cantons have no constitutional right of motion. The Federal Council receives a privileged position in the legislative procedure through para. 2, although it possesses no right of initiative under para. 1.
No. 7Subject matter: The "initiatives" within the meaning of para. 1 encompass, according to prevailing doctrine, all parliamentary procedural requests that aim at the creation, amendment or repeal of federal law (Ehrenzeller/Schindler/Schweizer/Vallender, St. Gallen Commentary FC, 4th ed. 2023, Art. 160 No. 8). The term is to be understood broadly and covers parliamentary initiatives in the narrower sense, but also motions and postulates.
No. 8 The right of initiative establishes a constitutional claim to formal treatment of the procedural request in the parliamentary procedure. The councils are obligated to deliberate and decide on submitted initiatives. A refusal of treatment would violate the constitutional right.
No. 9 The right of motion guarantees the possibility of concrete influence on the content of drafts during parliamentary deliberation. Motions may be directed at amendment, supplementation, deletion or referral back. The council must vote on motions made; non-treatment is inadmissible.
No. 10 The exercise of rights under Art. 160 FC is subject to parliamentary autonomy and is fundamentally not justiciable. As the Federal Court holds in BGE 146 I 145 E. 4.3, political design concerns are to be raised primarily through these democratic participation rights and not through legal remedies.
No. 11Scope of the cantonal right of initiative: The exact scope of the cantonal initiative is disputed. While Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr (Federal Constitutional Law, 10th ed. 2020, No. 1685) advocate a broad interpretation that also includes general political concerns, a more restrictive view argues for limitation to federalist concerns (Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. 2016, § 13 No. 34). Practice shows, however, that cantonal initiatives are thematically broad-ranging.
No. 12Relationship to the Federal Council's right of initiative: Whether the Federal Council has a de facto right of initiative is controversially discussed, although it is not mentioned in para. 1. Prevailing doctrine affirms this with reference to Art. 181 FC (Federal Council's right of initiative), whereby Art. 160 para. 1 FC would not be exhaustive (BSK FC-Sägesser, 2nd ed. 2024, Art. 160 No. 15). A minority opinion sees in the non-mention a conscious decision by the constitutional legislator.
No. 13Limits of the right of motion: It is disputed to what extent the right of motion is limited by the requirement of relevance to the subject matter. While Tschannen/Zimmerli/Müller (General Administrative Law, 4th ed. 2014, § 23 No. 18) argue for strict requirements regarding substantive connection, parliamentary practice takes a more generous approach, as long as a minimal thematic connection exists.
No. 14 For the exercise of the right of initiative, the statutory deadlines and formal requirements must be observed. Parliamentary initiatives require written form and justification (Art. 107 para. 2 ParlA). Cantonal initiatives must be decided by the competent cantonal body; mere submission by the cantonal government does not suffice.
No. 15 Motions in the council plenum can fundamentally be made orally, but for more complex amendment motions written form is recommended. The strategic timing of motion submission can be decisive: motions in detailed deliberation often have greater chances of success than those in the preliminary debate.
No. 16 The distinction between the various instruments (parliamentary initiative, motion, postulate) follows their different degrees of bindingness. While the parliamentary initiative aims directly at a draft enactment, motion and postulate instruct the Federal Council to prepare a draft. The choice of instrument should be guided by the intended goal and the political context.
#Democratic participation rights as alternative to legal protection
BGE 146 I 145 para. 4.3 of 5 May 2020
Parliamentary right of initiative and motions as democratic instrument for political shaping. The Federal Supreme Court holds that applications for specific shaping of current policy areas are in principle to be submitted through democratic participation possibilities, not through the legal protection route.
«Applications for specific shaping of current policy areas can in principle be submitted under Swiss constitutional law through democratic participation possibilities. For this purpose, political rights are available in particular, which also include the election of the Federal Chambers, in accordance with Arts. 34 and 136 Federal Constitution. (...) Reference should also be made to the right of initiative and motions of members of the Federal Chambers, parliamentary groups, parliamentary committees and cantons under Art. 160 para. 1 Federal Constitution as well as the right of motions of Council members and the Federal Council regarding a matter under consideration (Art. 160 para. 2 Federal Constitution).»
Judgment 1C_37/2019 of 5 May 2020 para. 4.3
Confirmation of the lower court's case law on the delimitation between legal protection and democratic participation rights. The Federal Supreme Court refers to Art. 160 Federal Constitution as an instrument for enforcing political concerns outside of judicial legal protection.
The significance of Art. 160 Federal Constitution lies in the fact that it creates the constitutional framework for parliamentary shaping power while simultaneously co-determining the limits of individual legal protection.
The extensive parliamentary practice shows the diverse application of Art. 160 Federal Constitution through parliamentary initiatives and motions by various initiators (Council members, parliamentary groups, committees, cantons). Case law thereby limits itself to delimitation questions regarding justiciability, while the exercise of parliamentary rights itself is subject to parliamentary autonomy.