KOTA KINABALU：在一项具有里程碑意义的决定中，高等法院在这里宣布联邦宪法第 122AB 条关于国家元首（TYT）为沙巴和砂拉越任命司法专员的条款无效。
法官拿督David Wong裁定，1994 年取消沙巴和砂拉越 TYT 任命司法专员/大法官的权力的修正案是无效的，因为它是在未经两州同意的情况下进行的。
在允许退休警察Robert Linggi对联邦政府提起的诉讼中，法官David还宣布了《司法任命委员会法》（JAC）第 37 条，该条授权首相通过公报修改该法的任何条款，无效和空白。
然而，他驳回了Keningau的Robert的说法，即《司法任命委员会法》（第 37 条除外）违宪。
在他于 2009 年 3 月 13 日提交的诉讼中，由律师Datuk Lawrence Thien代表的罗伯特，除其他外，要求法院宣布联邦取消两国元首权力任命沙巴和砂拉越高等法院司法专员/大法官无效。
大卫在 3 月 15 日提交的长达 39 页的书面判决书中表示，不可争辩的事实是联邦政府没有获得沙巴和砂拉越各自国家元首的同意下取消沙砂元首任命大法官的权力。
在 1994 年 6 月 24 日修订联邦宪法第 122A（3）和（4）条之前，沙巴和砂拉越高等法院的司法专员的任命可由各自的 TYTs 根据行政长官的建议任命沙巴和砂拉越高等法院法官（现称首席法官）。
“1994 年 6 月 24 日之后发生的事情是，沙巴和砂拉越元首任命司法专员的权力已被 1994 年宪法（修正案）法令（1994 年修正案）取消，该法令纳入了新的第 122AB 条同样的宪法，”他说。
大卫说，第 161E(2) 条禁止在未经各 TYT 同意的情况下修改联邦宪法，“如果该修正案会影响（联邦）宪法在沙巴和砂拉越高等法院的宪法和管辖权方面的运作。
“在我看来，‘1994年修正案 ’无疑‘ 影响了’联邦宪法的运作，因为它取消了沙砂元首任命高等法院司法专员的权力。
David说，考察联邦宪法的历史背景，也可以得出同样的结论。
他指出，起点是1962年政府间委员会（IGC）的报告和1963年7月8日的马来西亚协议。
IGC 包含沙巴和砂拉越同意组建马来西亚的条款和条件，这反映在马来西亚协议的第八条中，Wong 补充说，该建议在废除的第 122a(3) 和 (4) 条中是根深蒂固的联邦宪法。
“因此，可以说‘1994年修正案’违反了IGC报告，该报告就所有意图和目的而言，规定了沙巴和砂拉越在成立马来西亚方面的权利。
“这些权利是受保护的权利，要取消该权利必须获得沙砂元首/Yang di-Pertua Negeri 的同意。因此，可以推断，被废除的联邦宪法第122A条第3款和第4款（即IGC第3章第26（15）段）只能在得到沙砂元首同意后才能废除任命沙巴和砂拉越大法官/JC。
“因此，我认为‘1994年修正案’是无效的，因此，就取消沙巴和砂拉越元首任命司法专员/JC的权力而言，它是无效的，”他说。
针对2009年司法任命委员会法令（第695号法令）的制定是否违宪、无效的问题，大卫认为，2009年司法任命委员会法令（JAC法令）于2009年2月2日生效。
“通过 2009 年 JAC 法令，成立了司法委任委员会（JAC），主要是向首相推荐被委任为司法专员或法官的候选人，或将现任法官晋升至高等法院。
“我同意被告律师的意见，JAC 法案只是提供了一个程序，让 JAC 审查法官候选人，”他说。
看过相关规定后，David表示有一点很清楚，那就是JAC的所有职能都是向首相推荐合格的法官候选人，而这些推荐仍然是“推荐”，只是因为首相有全部自由裁量权。首相不受联邦宪法第 122AB 条和第 122B 条规定所影响。
“但是，JAC 法案中没有规定何时进行选择合适候选人的过程。是在咨询相关法官之前还是之后？
“《联邦宪法》第 122Ab 和 122B 条规定，‘首相还没向最高元首提出建议任命任何法官之前，应先咨询’相关法官。
“这种咨询义务是一项宪法义务，只能通过三分之二的国会议员投票修正案才能明确取消联邦宪法。
“当然没有这样的宪法修正案，因此必须根据宪法的咨询义务来阅读 JAC 法案，”他说。
换句话说，Davod认为司法委员会的建议是首相受制于职责义务必须咨询相关的法官。
“因此，2009 年 JAC 法案第 28 条不应被理解为没有要求当时的首相在根据联邦宪法第 122AB 和 122B 条提出建议之前，先咨询相关法官，否则，将使第 28 节越权被解读为联邦宪法。
“最后，至于 JAC 法令第 37 条文，无论以何种方式解读，它赋予首相权力，以刊登公报的方式修改 JAC 法令的任何条款。对 JAC 法案的任何修正或与此相关的任何立法都是立法权的行使。
“联邦宪法所体现的三权分立原则规定，只有议会才能制定或修改法律。因此，我别无选择，只能认为 JAC 第 37 条无效，因为它违反了联邦宪法。
“这一发现现在当然是学术性的，因为该条款有两年的日落条款，然后太阳从 2011 年 2 月 9 日开始落山，”他补充说。
针对代表联邦政府的高级联邦法律顾问Suzana Atan和Narkunavathy Sundereson认为Robert没有法定资格提起诉讼，法官裁定“所有马来西亚人都有责任保护我们的宪法”。
他说，身为沙巴人，Robert真心诚意的关心沙巴和砂拉越高等法院的宪法和管辖权以及该法院法官的任命、罢免和停职方面的权利受到侵蚀。
“我毫不犹豫地发现原告有法定资格提起诉讼。
“我完全理解这可能会鼓励诉讼的论点，但我认为，要挑战和废除国家最高法时，应该鼓励诉讼，”David补充道。
Borneo Post Online
Landmark court decision High Court rules Article 122AB of Federal Constitution null and void
BY KELIMEN SAWATAN ON MARCH 18, 2011, FRIDAY AT 1:28 PMSABAH
KOTA KINABALU: In a landmark decision, the High Court here has declared Article 122AB of the Federal Constitution on the appointment of Judicial Commissioners by the Heads of State (TYTs) for Sabah and Sarawak, null and void.
Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah ruled that the 1994 amendment to the provision for the removal of the power of the TYTs for Sabah and Sarawak to appoint Judicial Commissioner was invalid as it was done without the consent of the two states.
In allowing the suit brought by retired policeman Robert Linggi against the Federal Government, David also declared Section 37 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act (JAC), which empowers the Prime Minister to amend any provisions of the Act by way of a gazette, null and void.
He however dismissed the claim by Robert, who is from Keningau, that the Judicial Appointments Commission Act (except for section 37) was unconstitutional.
In his suit filed on March 13, 2009 Robert, who was represented by counsel Datuk Lawrence Thien, had, among others, sought declaration from the court that the removal of the power of appointment of judicial commissioners to the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak by the heads of the two States null and void.
In his 39-page written judgement delivered on March 15, David said it was not disputed that no consent was obtained from the respective Heads of State for Sabah and Sarawak.
Prior to amendments to Article 122A (3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution on June 24, 1994, the appointment of judicial commissioners to the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak may be appointed by the respective TYTs acting on the advice of the Chief Justice (now known as Chief Judge) of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.
“What happened after 24th June 1994 is that the power of the respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak to appoint judicial commissioners has been taken away by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994 (1994 Amendments) which incorporated a new Article 122AB of the same constitution,” he said.
David said that Article 161E(2) prohibits amendments to the Federal Constitution without the consent of the respective TYTs “if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the (Federal) Constitution as regards the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.
“The ‘1994 Amendment’ in my mind had no doubt ‘affected the operation’ of the Federal Constitution as it had removed the power of appointment of judicial commissioners to the High Court by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
“Hence, when the ‘1994 Amendment’ was introduced without the consent of the respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri, it contravened Article 161E (2) (b) of the Federal Constitution,” he held.
David said that the same conclusion can be reached by looking into the historical background of the Federal Constitution.
He pointed out that the starting point was the report of the Inter-Government Committee, 1962 (IGC) and the Malaysia Agreement dated July 8, 1963.
The IGC contained the terms and conditions in which Sabah and Sarawak agreed to form Malaysia and this is reflected in Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement, said Wong, adding that the recommendation was entrenched in the repealed Article 122a(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution.
“Hence, it can be said that the ‘1994 Amendment’ had contravened the IGC Report which for all intent and purposes set out the rights of Sabah and Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia.
“These rights are protected rights and their protection lies in the consent of the respective States through the consent of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri. Thus, it can be inferred that the repealed Article 122A (3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution (which is paragraph 26 (15) of Chapter 3 of IGC) can only be repealed with the consent of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak.
“Accordingly, it is my view that the ‘1994 Amendment’ is invalid and therefore, null and void in so far as it concerns the removal of the power to appoint judicial commissioners by the respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak,” he said.
Touching on the issue whether the enactment of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (Act 695) is unconstitutional, null and void, David held that the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (JAC Act) came into force on Feb 2, 2009.
“Through the JAC Act 2009, a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was established mainly to make recommendation to the Prime Minister on the candidates to be appointed as judicial commissioners or judges or on the promotion of sitting judges to the higher courts.
“The JAC Act, I agree with counsel for the defendant, merely provides a process in which candidates for judgeship are vetted by the JAC,” he said.
Having read the relevant provisions, David said one thing is clear and that is, all JAC do in their function is to recommend to the Prime Minister qualified candidates for judgeship and such recommendations remain as ‘recommendations’ only in that the Prime Minister’s discretion is completely untouched which is as provided in Article 122AB and 122B of the Federal Constitution.
“However, there is no provision in the JAC Act as to when this process of selecting suitable candidates is to occur. Is it before or after the consultation with the relevant judges?
“Article 122Ab and 122B of the Federal Constitution provides that ‘the Prime Minister shall consult’ the relevant judges before he advises the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for any appointment of judges.
“This duty to consult is a constitutional duty and it can only be taken away by an express amendment to the Federal Constitution, that is, by votes of two-third of members of Parliament.
“Of course there was no such constitutional amendment and hence the JAC Act must be read subjected to that constitutional duty to consult,” he said.
In other words, David held the recommendations of the Judicial Commission are subjected to the Prime Minister’s duty to consult the relevant Judges.
“Accordingly, Section 28 of the JAC Act 2009 should not be read as if there is no requirement for the Prime Minister of the day to consult the relevant Judges before he tenders his advice in accordance with Article 122AB and 122B of the Federal Constitution and to read otherwise would make section 28 ultra vires the Federal Constitution.
“Lastly, as for Section 37 of the JAC Act, whichever way one reads it, it gives the power of the Prime Minister to amend any provisions of the JAC Act by way of a gazette. Any amendment to the JAC Act or for that matter any legislation is an exercise of legislative power.
“The doctrine of separation of powers embodied in the Federal Constitution dictates that only the Parliament can make or amend laws. Accordingly, I am left with no option but to hold that Section 37 of the JAC null and void as it contravenes the Federal Constitution.
“This finding is now of course academic as this provision has a sunset clause of two years and then the sun has since set on 9 Feb 2011,” he added.
On the contention by Senior Federal Counsel Suzana Atan and Narkunavathy Sundereson who acted for the government that Robert had no locus standi to bring the suit, the judge ruled that “all Malaysians have a duty to protect our constitution.”
He said Robert, as a Sabahan, was genuinely concerned with the erosion of the rights of Sabah in so far as the Constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and the appointment, removal and suspension of judges of that court.
“I have no hesitation in finding that the plaintiff has the locus standi to bring this action.
“I am fully aware of the argument that this may encourage litigation but in my view when there is a challenge concerning and dismantling of the Supreme Law of the country, litigation should be encouraged,” David added.
No comments:
Post a Comment