On Monday March 3, 2014 a conference was held in the Knesset on the subject of rule of law - the appropriate balance between the legislative, the executive and the Supreme Court.
Former Justice Minister Professor Daniel Friedman discussed several problematic issues in the Supreme Court's conduct which affect the behavior of other governmental authorities with regard to political appointments or the authority of governmental officials.
Other issues raised by Professor Friedman include the lack of imposing court costs on the petitioners and the fact that the courts give too many people and organizations standing. This has resulted in the flooding of the court by parties not directly related to the subject of the petition, and who are aware that they will not be severely penalized with large expenses if their petition is found to be unjustified.
Professor Friedman also criticized the disqualification laws using the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the rejection of the Tal Law, and the creation of laws by judgment - without proper parliamentary procedure.
With regard to the question why the Knesset does not defend its rights as the legislative, Professor Freidman suggested a disturbing theory by which elective officials are hesitant to confront a strong legal system at an era where any fault can result in a serious charge.
Professor Friedman pointed out that "what will the High Court say" is a commonly asked question in government and Knesset dealings, which makes the decision-making process longer and more costly.
"When the High Court acts like a legislator, it does not undergo the same system of debate and critique as the Knesset.
Judges don't see the ramifications of the legislation, which can be far-reaching, and they cancel laws too easily," he stated.
There is no legal basis for attorney-general decisions being binding for the government and the fact that this has become the norm cripples the executive branch of government, according to Friedman.
MK Ayelet Shaked reinforced Professor Friedman's words and argued that the government's main problem is the excess ratification and paralyzing fear of "what will the Supreme Court say". As an example MK Shaked discussed the violation to equality in the Conscription Law, which she claims is unavoidable, but in reality may not hold up in Court. According to MK Shaked the fear of harming the principle of equality prevents the legislative from advancing the law and applying it.< /div>
Other participants at this debate included former Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, Professor Ron Shapira from the Peres Academic Center, Professor Ariel Bendor from Bar Ilan University, Professor Barak Medina from the Hebrew University, and Dr. Shuki Yogev from Netanya Academic College.
Another issue raised by Dr. Segev is the veto three members of the Judicial Appointment Committee hold as Supreme Court Judges. The current make-up of the committee creates a closed group, however the Knesset can changes by appointing a former Supreme Court Judge or a District Judge in place of one of the current members.
Attorney Idan Abuhav from the Legal Forum for Israel who initiated this conference stated that "the point of observation and criticism should also be regarding the conduct of the executive and legislative that weaken themselves in front of the judiciary." Recently a government bill proposal was published proposing that the executive will seek court approval to end a hunger strike in prisons run by them. We might ask ourselves whether these two authorities have not forgotten or neglected their position and are actually contributing to the intensification of the power of the court at their own expense. The purpose of the conference was to raise awareness to this question in order to try and encourage rethinking in the legislative and executive authorities.
Leave a Reply