Ambush Lawmaking—Part 2: Exploiting Expedited Procedures and Special Cases in Việt Nam

The term “ambush” is often associated with the battlefield, conjuring images of smoke, weapons, and sudden attacks where one side quietly prepares to strike while the other is completely unprepared.

Recently, however, this term has been applied to an entirely unique context: the drafting and promulgation of legal documents in Việt Nam.

This is a sphere that inherently demands the highest degree of transparency and caution. Instead, drafts are produced in haste, public consultations are conducted quietly under tight deadlines, and legal documents take effect immediately upon signing.

All of these actions raise serious questions about the practice of “cutting corners” in lawmaking across the country.

From Exception to Routine

The expedited legislative procedure is theoretically an “emergency lane” reserved for truly exceptional situations where delays could inflict immediate harm. As such, it should be rare, tightly controlled, and subject to strict oversight.

Recently, however, this exception has become a disguised norm. These expedited procedures now issue a large number of legal documents hastily, often with extremely short or non-existent consultation periods.

In late 2025 alone, the National Assembly passed a record 51 laws and 39 resolutions, with at least 50 of those 51 laws adopted via expedited procedures. During the 9th session, the assembly passed 34 laws, some of which had just undergone amendments in an extraordinary session in February 2025. [4]

At the same time, it hastily approved a resolution amending the 2013 Constitution and more than a dozen other resolutions. [5]

The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) has recently spearheaded this trend by drafting numerous legal documents with minimal public input.

During the recent Lunar New Year holiday, the police quietly sought feedback on over 20 draft documents, many open for comment for just nine days. [6]

Furthermore, the government required the police to complete eight cybersecurity-related decrees so that the new National Assembly can pass them before July 1. [7]

As a result, the legislative process has been stripped of its essential preparatory steps. It has devolved into a race to fulfill the policy directives of the Communist Party, including administrative restructuring, provincial mergers, and cybersecurity mandates. 

Once the “party’s will” is decided, few dare to question whether the necessary infrastructure is ready or if the public will accept the changes. The law therefore ceases to be the result of multi-dimensional deliberation and instead becomes a mere tool to formalize party directives.

“Ambush-style” Lawmaking—Entirely by the Book

In Việt Nam, the Law on Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents serves as the “backbone” of the legal system, governing the procedures for drafting and issuing legislation. However, this law has been amended in ways that systematically loosen requirements, paving the way for faster lawmaking with minimal or no consultation. [8]

Under the current iteration of the law, amended twice in 2025, the minimum time for public consultation has been slashed to less than one-third of its previous length. [9] [10]

For standard procedures, the consultation period dropped from 60 days to a mere 20 days, compressing a process that requires sufficient study time into less than a month. This makes meaningful input exceedingly difficult, particularly for foundational legislation like the Criminal Code or the Civil Code. 

Meanwhile, expedited procedures have been cut from 20 days to just three days, rendering substantive review of dozens of pages nearly impossible and reducing public consultation to a purely symbolic gesture. Furthermore, it introduces special cases where the public has no opportunity to provide input at all, leaving the process entirely dependent on the drafting body.

Compounding this issue is the highly ambiguous criteria used to justify these expedited or special procedures. State agencies can cite vague and qualitative reasons such as “urgent situations that require immediate resolution” or “force majeure events.”

Without clear definitions or independent verification mechanisms, drafting authorities can easily exploit this ambiguity to shorten procedures. Merely applying the right “label” is enough to bypass standard protocol.

For example, in the controversial draft resolution on digital citizen development at the end of 2025, the Ministry of Public Security invoked the need to “address urgent and important issues arising in practice […]” under special cases to bypass the National Assembly. [11] [12] Numerous other legal documents issued under expedited procedures in 2025 relied on similarly vague justifications. 

The appeal is obvious: it is quick, and it remains procedurally compliant.

If drafting authorities can easily opt for a convenient shortcut without breaking the rules, the incentive to invest in comprehensive lawmaking diminishes. At first glance, due process appears intact, as documents take effect without technical violations.

Nevertheless, the legal system as a whole has gradually lost the safeguards that force power to slow down and deliberate carefully. To understand the consequences of such haste, one need only look at Decree 46/2026. [13]

---

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on March 27, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.