Art. 1. I prefer “permanent” to “interminable”, which really means “too long”!
In the Bill of Rights, the word “beliefs” is preferable to “persuasions”.
Art. 56. You might want to say that the method of election shall be by proportional representation, without specifying the system.
Art. 65. I cannot see why the members of the Council of the Bank. etc. must be elected from amongst the members of the Riigikogu. Surely, there might be well qualified people outside the legislature. Why this seemingly arbitrary restriction?
Articles 83 and 84 seem to me to preclude the possibility of a minority government, one supported by a plurality of the Riigikogu, but not a majority, although with no majority against it. Is this your intention?
The position of the President of the Republic does not seem wholly clear to me. Article 72 requiring him to suspend membership of a political party seems to imply that he shall be a constitutional head of state, rather like the Presidents of Germany and Italy. On the other hand, such proposals as Article 77 (12), imply that he will be a bit more like the President of France, who is also, of course, elected by universal suffrage. Articles 4–6, and perhaps others, are ambiguous – they can either indicate real powers or merely formal ones. Article 104 gives him a genuine power to reject legislation. There is some danger here of competing legitimacies, which should, I think, be ironed out. If you want the President to be a merely formal head of state, I think that this should be spelt out more precisely. You might for example specify under what circumstances the President can recall the Prime Minister under Article 85. I do not believe that it can be right for the President to have the power to initiate legislation under Article 97. If, however, you want a political President, like the French, you need to specify carefully the division of powers between the President and the Prime Minister.
Under what circumstances can the Riigikogu have the right to put draft legislation to a referendum. What is the point of Article 101? The Riigikogu, a majority of whom presumably support the government, does not need this power to secure the passage of legislation.
You could, if you wished, follow the example of the Danish 1952 Constitution, and allow e.g. one third of the members of the Riigikogu to demand a referendum on legislation. This could prove a powerful check upon a government.
Alternatively, you could restrict the referendum to the validation of changes in the constitution; but require all such changes to be validated by referendum.
Do you really want the decision on the referendum to be determined by simple majority? Suppose the turnout is very low. You might insert a requirement, of the kind used in Denmark for constitutional referendums, that a “Yes” decision must involve not only a simple majority, but also at least 40% of the registered electorate voting “Yes”.
You might further require a qualified majority e.g. 60%, – especially for constitutional change.