By Joe Fernandez
THE debate in the court of public opinion rages, due to an Istana statement yesterday (June 29) on whether Parliament in fact stands automatically dissolved on the same date.
Parliament last adjourned sine die on Dec 29, 2020. Then, the Emergency was declared on Jan 12, 2021, and will expire on Aug 1 unless extended.
But then, Article 55: “Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament” comes in.
It reads, among others, “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall from time to time summon Parliament and shall not allow six months to elapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first meeting in the next session”.
Again, it reads elsewhere in the said Article: “Parliament unless sooner dissolved shall continue for five years from the date of its first meeting and shall then stand dissolved”.
Recall that the Agong did publicly advise twice that Parliament can sit even during an Emergency. That was followed by the statement June 16, when the Istana called for the Parliament to reconvene “as soon as possible”.
Earlier, following a letter from former Interim Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, the Agong in an unprecedented move met all heads of parties with lawmakers over five days. That was followed by the June 16 meeting with the sultans.
In jurisprudence, even an “invalid” law remains valid unless ruled otherwise.
The jury may be still out on whether the Emergency Proclamation and Ordinance are the special circumstances which provide an exception, when read with Article 55. If so, unless the Federal Court rules otherwise, Parliament can be expected to reconvene as usual, probably later, if not “as soon as possible”.
It’s unlikely that the Istana would seek a Declaration on a point of law on Article 55, under Article 130 Advisory jurisdiction of Federal Court, which states: “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may refer to the Federal Court for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arisen or appears to him likely to arise, and the Federal Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on any question so referred to it”.
Article 150(3) stipulates that both the Emergency Proclamation and Ordinance can be revoked if Parliament so chooses; Comptroller of the Royal Household further disclosed that the Agong wishes to see the Emergency Proclamation and Ordinance debated; and the Agong held out that all Parliamentary Select Committees must continue to provide check and balance.
Patently, debating the Emergency after it expires would be “academic” in the language of the court. Emergency Ordinance, unless defeated by Parliament, can remain in force after the Proclamation expires. There are precedents where Parliament kept Emergency Ordinance for many years.
Dewan Rakyat Speaker Azhar Azizan Harun and Dewan Negara President Rais Yatim were unanimous in media reports that Parliament can reconvene in the 1st week of September, “at the very latest”.
Putrajaya has vowed to reconvene Parliament during Phase 3 of the National Recovery Plan (NRP) i.e. after herd immunity is attained. It’s not known when that Phase would begin. Already, Phase 1 has been extended indefinately.
Herd immunity aside, it’s not clear why Parliament would not be sitting before Aug 1, or when the Emergency expires. All lawmakers and Parliament workers, according to media reports, have been vaccinated.
Herd immunity may have nothing to do with Parliament reconvening unless debated for not attaining by the target date, if any.
Also, there’s no guarantee that the population would acquire herd immunity,or if 70% of them could be done being vaccinated with two doses, by even Sept end.
Especially since the 10% of two doses target for beginning Phase 2 on June 28 was not met. So far, only 6.7% had two doses and 17.1% had a single dose, according to the Ministry of Health.
Also, on the other two criteria, daily virus cases remained above the threshold 4,000 and demand for intensive care had not “moderated”. – June 30, 2021
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez is a regular FocusM contributor.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
