| [LEGAL QUESTION] Actions of the Chair |
|
I still don't believe the Chair should have discretionary power, with my opinion that the chair should simply be an administrative role with no control over the flow of politics.
I'm willing to compromise on this though and allow this. I feel we should strengthen the final line a bit though. (12-10-2014, 03:53 PM)Farengeto Wrote: I still don't believe the Chair should have discretionary power, with my opinion that the chair should simply be an administrative role with no control over the flow of politics. I understand your concern, Farengeto, which is why along with this, we thought that the Chair should provide a suitable explanation for whenever he/she uses discretionary powers, and that the Assembly, if it so wishes, can start a discussion on the discretionary powers of the Chair thereof. This should be a sort of check and balance for a Chair and a compromise between both parties. How do you think the final line should be strengthened?
I guess we can't really obligate one or anything, I think that may be fine.
Alright then, I'll tidy up the text and formatting tomorrow!
Also, I was wondering if we should declassify this thread and the last one so the rest of the community could better understand why we changed our stance on this matter.
Thoughts?
Our stance will be explained when we release our ruling and the explanation that goes along with it. There is no need to declassify our threads. If can explain ourselves within our rulings then we are not doing our jobs correctly. Awe: Please post the final version of your suggested language here for a final check-see.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice HCLQ1408
- 13.12.14 -
Petitioners
Belschaft
Presiding Justices
Awe, Farengeto, Gustave Berr
Non-Presiding Justice
Llamas
Honoured Justices, I would like to request a review of the actions of the Chair of Assembly in regards to the events surrounding proposed alterations to parole. Seeing how he has now twice refused to bring to vote legislation duly motioned to vote, it would seem that he is in knowing and wilful breach of the law, clarified by this very ruling. Could the court confirm whether or not the Chair is in breach of the law? And, if so, what consequences does an official face for breaking the law in such manner? Majority Opinion
Awe, Farengeto, Gustave Berr
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Belchaft. In response to whether the Chair of the Assembly's delaying of the vote was in breach of the law, while the Court understands and acknowledges that some parties are frustrated that a draft, having received a motion and a second, still took some time to be placed a vote, the Court notes that the Chair of the Assembly was upfront about his reasoning for delaying the vote, stating that he felt more time was needed before the Assembly could adequately and objectively discuss the proposal.. It is in the Court's opinion that the delaying of the vote was actually him appropriately fulfilling his duties as the Chair of the Assembly. With regards to the issue of punishment and legal ramifications, the Court is unable to render a judgement as the misuse of authority is not a criminal offence, of which are defined in Articles 5 and 6 of the Code of Laws, in the Penal and Criminal Code. Furthermore, no legal proceedings have been initiated against the Chair of the Assembly. It is in the Court's opinion that other appropriate channels, such as the initiating of a recall motion be sought instead. The Court further acknowledges that this judgement is in contradiction with a previous judgement, HCLQ1407, and has resolved to partially overturn the judgement, as reflected below: Quote: Wrote:"As the Chair is responsible for the passage of legislation, in this case contradictory or otherwise, personal discretion or executive policy should not apply as this may obstruct the passage of legislation, thus preventing the Chair from fulfilling legal obligations in the discharge and execution of his duties." This change arises as a result of the consensus of the Court Justices that what the Chair of the Assembly had done, in this case, was to utilise personal discretion in delaying the vote to ensure fairness in that both pieces of legislation, having been motioned and seconded by the Assembly, are put to vote at the same time. It is in the Court's opinion that this was only a logical move, and that the previous ruling was somewhat restrictive on the powers of the Chair of the Assembly, which would have rendered this move illegal. However, this Court also believes that a form of check and balance should be put in place on the actions of the Chair of the Assembly, that while allowing the Chair of the Assembly to utilise personal discretion, the Chair must still remain accountable to the Cabinet and the Assembly of the South Pacific. As such, in light of this Legal Question, The High Court recommends that in addition to having the Chair of the Assembly provide a detailed explanation when personal discretion is utilised, the Assembly could also examine Article 3, Section 2 of the Charter and clearly define what, if any, discretionary powers the Chair of the Assembly should posses.
My only issue is suggesting that they pursue a Recall. It would not be in the best in interests of the Court to seem like we are suggesting a recall is warranted or even necessary. If it is fine with you two, I will strike that line from this language and post this reply to the legal question.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
It's fine by me.
Good work on this, Awe. Thanks for drafting the language.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |