A question that has remained debated since the Jackson litigation was what should be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law of law. This essay seeks to examine the supposedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analyzing the broad dictum of the Jackson case and relating it to judicial review that upholds the rule of law. The argument of this essay is that despite the deferential attitude of the courts towards the sovereignty of Parliament's laws, the rule of law has the potential to take over and overtake parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor of the British constitution. is commonly used to describe a written legal document that embodies a set of rules and principles that "establish and regulate or govern the government" of a country. The United Kingdom, however, does not have such a document. The British constitution, which is derived from various written sources including parliamentary acts, judicial decisions, constitutional conventions, European Union law and international law, is largely uncodified. presents the advantages of dynamism, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of society, it is very difficult to determine the ultimate constitutional principle which should confer legitimacy to the British constitution. This results in a battle between two major schools of thought: political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism. On the one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle of the British constitution, with power and law-making linked. in the middle of the article......pe, Lady Baroness Hale and Lord Steyn. Lord Hope notably proposed that “the rule of law as applied by the courts is the ultimately determining factor on which our constitution rests”. This view was shared by Lady Baroness Hale who said that "the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law", although she acknowledged that "constraints on what Parliament can to do are political and diplomatic rather than constitutional. » Lord Steyn was perhaps the most outspoken. While recognizing that parliamentary sovereignty is the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution, he asserted that parliamentary sovereignty is a creation of common law and that exceptional situations may arise where the courts must intervene to review Parliament's legislation, which implies that even a sovereign Parliament can be subject to the rule of law.