Utusan MalaysiaSPR berhak isytihar kedudukan tiga kerusi di Perak
09/04/2009 2:34pm
PUTRAJAYA 9 April – Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) adalah entiti yang paling berhak mengisytiharkan kedudukan tiga kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) di Perak.
Ini bermakna tiga ADUN bebas, Jamaluddin Mohd. Radzi (Behrang), Mohd. Osman Jailu (Changkat jering) dan Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) masih merupakan ADUN yang sah bagi ketiga-tiga kawasan itu.
Keputusan sebulat suara itu dibuat oleh panel lima hakim diketuai oleh Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd. Sheriff. - Utusan
09/04/2009 2:34pm
PUTRAJAYA 9 April – Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) adalah entiti yang paling berhak mengisytiharkan kedudukan tiga kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) di Perak.
Ini bermakna tiga ADUN bebas, Jamaluddin Mohd. Radzi (Behrang), Mohd. Osman Jailu (Changkat jering) dan Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) masih merupakan ADUN yang sah bagi ketiga-tiga kawasan itu.
Keputusan sebulat suara itu dibuat oleh panel lima hakim diketuai oleh Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd. Sheriff. - Utusan
Penghuni Gua : Patuhilah. Jangan pulak kata Hakim berat sebelah pulak. Kalau kalah PRK kata ada hantu. Kalau menang tak ada pulak hantu. Kalau menang kes mahkamah kata YAA Hakim adil. Bila kalah kata YAA Hakim berat sebelah dan ada konspirasi. Fikirkanlah.
Patuhilah kuasa undang-undang tertinggi negara dah istiharkan.
ReplyDeleteJangan pulak kata ada hantu Hakim plak, selepas habis pengundi hantu.
Itulah Pas yang kita kenali sekarang.
The Federal Court (5 judges) unanimously held (9th April 2009) that the Election Commission had the authority to determine whether there is or not a casual vacancy.
ReplyDeleteIndeed sivakumar is brave enough in thinking that he was above and over the Election Commission. (see http://jelas.info/2009/02/19/brave-sivakumar/#comment-180273)
Whether wrongly or rightly decided, these 5 Federal Court judges cannot agree with Sivakumar.
Soalan seterusnya adalah, adakah dia mengatasi Sultan pula bila menggantungkan Dato Zambri dan EXCOnya?
Prof Madya Dr Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin
Pensyarah (Public Law Dept) IIUM
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=402996
April 09, 2009 18:23 PM
Three Independent Perak Assemblymen Keep Their Seats
PUTRAJAYA, April 9 (Bernama) -- The three independent Perak state assemblymen keep their post after the Federal Court ruled that the Eelction Commision was the rightful entity to declare vacancies in the state seat.
In a landmark decision, Court of Appeal President, Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who headed a five-men bench, granted an application by the trio - Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang), Capt (Rtd) Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) - to declare that they were the state assemblymen for the three constituencies.
Alauddin said the bench was unanimous in its decision that the EC had the power to declare whether the seats were vacant and not the Perak State Assembly Speaker, V.Sivakumar.
Alauddin held that the interpretation of Article 36 (5) of the Perak Constitution, read together with Section 12 (3) of the Election Act 1958, meant that the EC was the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy of a state legislative assembly seat in Perak.
The other four judges who sat with him were Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Federal Court judges Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Datuk S. Augustine Paul and Appeals Court judge Datuk James Foong.
Yesterday, the court for the first time, decided to hear and determine the constitutional issue over who had the power to declare vacancies for the seats.
Sivakumar, who was present in court, however, declined to give any comments when asked by the media on the decision.
The three assemblymen had applied for their suit against Sivakumar to be referred to the apex court on the grounds that it involved constitutional issues.
They had originally filed the suit against Sivakumar at the High Court Ipoh seeking a declaration that they were the valid elected representatives for the three constituencies although Sivakumar had announced that the seats were vacant.
With today's decision, there is closure to the trio's suit against Sivakumar.
In February, Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman left Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) to become independent assemblymen while Hee of the DAP did the same, and this led Sivakumar to declare the seats vacant on the premise that the trio had signed undated resignation letters after winning the seats in the general election held on March 8 last year.
However, EC chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusuf, later declared Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman were still assemblymen and no by-elections would be called for their seats (at this time Hee had not left the DAP yet).
At the outset, counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, for the three assemblymen, submitted that it was very clear under Article 36 (5) that the EC was to establish a casual vacancy for the seats and there was no provision under the Federal Constitution that conferred the Speaker the right to announce the vacancies.
He said the role of the Speaker was to submit resignation letters of assemblymen who quit to the EC and not to declare the seats were vacant.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who was an intervenor in the proceedings, also said that Article 36 (5) conferred the EC the right to establish casual vacancies for the seats in the assembly.
Sivakumar's counsel Tommy Thomas submitted that Article 72 of the Federal Constitution meant that Sivakumar enjoyed immunity and his decision that declared the seats were vacant could not be questioned in court.
He said under the article, the Speaker was also conferred the privilege and power to decide over the issue involved in the assembly house and that his decision was final and cannot be challenged in court.
Tommy also said Sivakumar's action in informing the trio's resignation to the EC and announcing the vacancies for the seats was part of his role in the assembly.
Tommy argued that the function of the EC as stated in the Federal Constitution was more an administrative function related to elections such as fixing the nomination and polling dates.
Another of Sivakumar's counsel, Sulaiman Abdullah, submitted that Article 31(1) of the Perak Constitution said that any dispute arising within the state legislative assembly should be settled in the house and it was not for the EC or the court to decide.
"In the present case, there were two separate functions -- separation of powers and separation of functions. The speaker's decision was made by the power given to him while the EC's function is more on dealing with elections," he said.
-- BERNAMA
Hari ini (14hb April 2009) Yang Amat Arif Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan (Federal Court) yang diketuai oleh Presiden Makamah Rayuan (ambil perhatian bahawa Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan juga adalah Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan) Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sherif, Hakim Besar Malaya Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, Datuk S. Augustine Paul dan Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin sepakat bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidang kuasa mendengar dan menentukan samada keputusan pergantunggan Dato Zambry dan Exconya dari menghadiri sdiang itu mengikut undng-undang atau tidak (sah atau tidak). Sila lawati;
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=404155
April 14, 2009 20:13 PM
Zambry Used Correct Procedure To Challenge Speaker's Suspension - Federal Court
PUTRAJAYA, April 14 (Bernama) -- The Federal Court ruled today that Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors had used the right procedure to challenge their suspension from attending the State Legislative Assembly sittings by Speaker V. Sivakumar.
Sebelum ini (awal April) mahkamah telah menolak bantahan awal bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tiada bidangkuasa menentukan isu peruntukkan dalam perlembagaan negeri hanya isu perlembagaan Persekutuan. Bantahan ini bagaimanapun tidak berjaya kerana Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan. Mahkamah Rayuan sebelum ini memulangkan “paku buah keras” kepada Mahkamah Rayuan yang memutuskan bahawa peruntukkan perlembagaan negeri bukan sesuatu yang boleh dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Disegi ini, pada pandangan itu ada betulnya namun tidak tepat kerana Mahkamah Rayuan terlupa bahawa bidangkuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan meliputi bukan sahaja bidangkuasa Rayuan (appellate) tetapi termasuk bidangkuasa2 seperti Penyelian (supervisory), bidangkuasa semakan (revisionary) dan bidangkuasa asal (original). Malahan biangkuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan merangkumi dan melewati (goes beyond) apa-apa bidang kuasa yang terdapat pada Mahkamah Tinggi mahupun Mahkamah Rayuan. Maksud saya, Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak sekadar (walaupun kebiasaannya) mendengar rayuan dari mahkamah Rayuan (Court of Appeal) seperti difahami ramai. Lihat Courts of Judicature Act 1964,
Tidak lama kemudian (9hb April) Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan lagi bahawa Suruhanjaya Pilhanraya (dibawah Akta Pilihanraya) adalah kuasa menentu samada terdapatnya kerusi kosong DUN(casual vacancy) bukannya Speaker.
Kini pula (14th April) , Mahkamah Persekutuan sekali lagi memutuskan bahawa mahkamah persekutuan ada bidang kuasa mendengar dan menentukan samada Speker Sivakumar mempunyai kuasa untuk menggantungkan tugas MB (Dato Zambry) dan Exconya selama 18 bulan dari menghadiri sidang DUN. Dibawah Artikel 44 Undang2 Tubuh Negeri Perak (Perak State Constitution) Zambry dan 6 ahli ECO lain -- Zainol Fadzi Paharuddin, Datuk Ramly Zahari, Hamidah Osman, Datuk Saarani Mohamad, Mohd Zahir Abdul Khalid dan Dr Mah Hang Soon memohon deklarasi penggantungan mereka adalah tidak sah dan batal (null and void).
Halangan demi halangan (melalui bantahan awal) Sivakumar bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tiada bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan kuasa Speaker ternyata gagal. Pada pandangan/hujah mereka, Mahkamah (Mahkamah Rendah, Tinggi, Rayuan, Persekutuan) tiada bidangkuasa mendengar dan menentukan samada tindak tanduk speaker yang kononnya kebal berdasarkan Artikel 72 Undang2 Tubuh Negeri Perak (Perak State Constitution) yang menyatakan bahawa kesahan (validity) apa-apa prosiding di DUN tidak boleh dipersoalkan di mana-mana Mahkamahpun.
Isunya kini ialah Setelah bantahan awal sivakumar gagal, persoalannya sekarang adalah samada Sivakumar mempunyai kuasa untuk menggantungkan MB Dato Zambri dan EXconya. Dalam hal ini apa itu "prosiding" menjadi isu penting?
Jika Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan spekaer tiada kuasa menggantung MB Dato Zambry dan Exconya, bermakna masaalah besar akan menimpa Spekaer kerana “pandai-pandai” menggantung mereka-mereka tersebut dengan menggunakan kuasa yang salah atau salah guna kuasa (apa bezanya –fikir sendiri).
Dibawah kanun Keseksaan (dibawah), jika sabit kesalahan, hukumannya (termasuk mereka2 yang bersekongkol juga) adalah berat;
121B. Offences against the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Rulers or Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
Whoever compasses, imagines, invents or intends the deposition or deprivation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Malaysia or the deprivation or deposition of the Ruler, his heirs or successors, or of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri from the rule of a State, or the overawing by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force the Government of Malaysia or of any State, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
121C. Abetting offences under section 121A or 121B.
Whoever abets the commission of any of the offences punishable by section 121A or 121B shall be punished with the punishment provided for the said offences.
124. Assaulting Member of Parliament, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power.
Whoever, with the intention of inducing or compelling or attempting to induce or compel a member of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or of any State Executive Council to exercise or refrain from exercising in any manner the lawful powers of such member, assaults or wrongfully restrains, or attempts wrongfully to restrain, or overawes by means of criminal force, or the show of criminal force, or attempts so to overawe, such member shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Maka, apakah pergantunngan MBDatZambry dan EXCONya sah?
http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2009/02/deterministic-chaos-in-perak.html
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2009
Deterministic Chaos In Perak
Here is a news report from the New Straits Times today:
Karpal stumped by Sivakumar's decision
IPOH: Pakatan Rakyat members are shaking their heads in disbelief over the suspension of Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six exco members by Speaker V. Sivakumar for 18 months and 12 months respectively.
Even DAP chairman Karpal Singh, a prominent lawyer, is stumped by Sivakumar's decision to order the suspension. Karpal told a press conference at Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur Sivakumar must call for the assembly to meet to endorse his decision to suspend Zambry and six executive councilors.
He said Sivakumar's decision must be endorsed by the house.
Several PR lawmakers here said the move was totally unexpected as they had painstakingly gone through the state constitution and the assembly's Standing Orders prior to Wednesday's hearing before the Rights and Privileges Committee.
"I was shocked upon hearing Sivakumar's decision. We had discussed about this (possibility of suspending Zambry and his exco members) and strongly advised against it. "By doing so, we have fallen into our own trap, akin to stepping on a banana peel planted by ourselves.
"I honestly do not know whose advice he (Sivakumar) took before making up his mind," said a PR lawmaker.
Karpal’s suggestion that Sivakumar should put the suspension to the Assembly first is echoed on both sides. Perak UMNO Youth secretary Hang Tuah Din cited Rule 72(2) of the Standing Orders stating :
“when the House was not in session, a state representative could complain to the Speaker of any offences. The Speaker, if satisfied that the offence appeared to have been committed, could refer it to the Rights and Privileges Committee. In turn, the committee must report it to the Assembly”
“It is clear he (Sivakumar) should have referred the matter to the Assembly, and not made a decision,” Hang Tuah told a press conference.
Hang Tuah Din’s statement tallies with Karpal’s view.
According to another comment, by not following the proper procedure, the Speaker has become “the investigator, the prosecutor and the judge at the same time” when such a decision by the Privileges Committees should have been referred to the House.
The Perak Assembly does not meet until April. Logically the Speaker cannot suspend any member of the Assembly until then. Pending the vote, the MB and the six Excos are not suspended. And when the Assembly sits in April, the MB and the six Excos targeted by Sivakumar must also have the right to vote over their own suspension. Otherwise it is as good as a confirmed suspension already and a mockery of the whole process.
(Imagine a situation where a Speaker goes berserk and suspends say 28 members of the Assembly. Why not? If the Speaker can suspend six Excos and the MB, why not suspend 12, 18 or 28 members of the Assembly?)
More importantly if you suspend an MB and six Exco members, how does the State Government function? How does this help the people of Perak? No matter how tasty or distasteful, the State of Perak and its people do not have an effective Government to rule its affairs. Is this what the Speaker Sivakumar really aims to do?
Granted that Sivakumar has a serious axe to grind with the new MB over the change in the Perak State Government. But that does not justify his present action. Suspending an MB and six Exco members on some excuse that they showed contempt to the State Legislature appears frivolous.
Again I can smell the presence of His Ineptitudeness here.
The suggestion that the MB and his Exco take this matter to Court to set aside the suspension imposed by the Speaker is sound. It must be pursued urgently.
If the Court sets aside the Speaker’s action, it is possible that it will be Sivakumar who is in contempt. This must be thought through extremely very carefully but Sivakumar can also be held in breach of other laws.
In my view treason against the Sultan is not an issue because Sivakumar has not denied that Zambry Kadir is the new MB of Perak. He recognizes the Sultan’s appointment of Zambry as the new MB. He has merely suspended the MB and six Excos based on procedure which does not seem right.
Lihat juga;
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2484884/Article/index_html
http://lenggongvalley.blogspot.com/2009/02/perak-pakatan-snared-in-own-trap-over.html
Sidang bawah pokok pula?
Berkenaan Fasal XXXVI (1) Undang2 Tubuh Negeri Perak jelas bahawa Sultan mempunyai kuasa dan hanya bertanggungjawab mengadakan paling tidak satu sidang setiap 6 bulan - tempoh ini pun belum tamat dan akan hanya tamat mengikut kata panel2 itu pada - 15 Mei 2009. (lihat Komen saya terhadap rancangan “Hujah, NTV9” pada 9.30 – 10.30 malam siaran langsung dari UiTM – “Krisis Perak” pada 31b Mac 2009)
Perkara XXXVI (1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Perak Darul Ridzuan memperuntuk “DYMM hendaklah dari semasa ke semasa memanggil bersidang Dewan Negeri itu dan tidaklah boleh membiarkan tempoh enam bulan berlalu di antara perjumpaan yang akhir lepas dalam satu persidangan dengan tarikh yang ditetapkan bagi perjumpaan yang pertama dalam persidangan yang di hadapan.”
Pun begitu, untuk sidang itu sah, suatu notis hendaklah diisukan oleh setiausaha DUN yang mana tidak dibuat. Notis ini adalah mandatori (wajib) sepertimana yang saya faham dari perbincangan panel2.
Pun begitu,
PT 1 (Perintah Tetap DUN) mengatakan “maka Setiausaha Dewan hendaklah membacakan Pemasyhuran DYMM Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan memanggil mesyuarat..”.
Maka Sultan mempunyai kata akhir (ultimate say) dan jika belum diperkenankan Sultan, pada pandangan saya jika sidang dibuat diDewan pun adalah tidak sah apatah lagi ditempat yang tidak diwartakan iaitu dibawah pokok?
“PT 10 (1) mengatakan “ Penggal Dewan hendaklah diadakan pada waktu dan tempat sebagaimana yang ditetapkan oleh DYMM Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan dari semasa ke semasa melalui perisytiharan dalam Warta,”
Fasal XXXVI (1) Undang2 Tubuh Perak memberi Sultan kata akhir (ultimate say) samada sidang DUN boleh atau tidak dibuat. Dalam hal ini, saya tidak nampak relevannya perbezaan samada sesi DUN di tangguhkan, prorogue atau sebab dibubarkan seperti mana pandangan Prof Dr Shad bahawa jika di tangguhkan perkenan Sultan tidak diperlukan lagi. Bukankah sultan mempunyai kata akhir (ultimate say, veto) dibawah Perkara XXXVI (1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Perak Darul Ridzuan untuk memerintah agar sidang yang ditangguhkanpun supaya tidak dibuat sehingga arahan selanjutnya dari Baginda Sultan. Tindakan mengunci” adalah bukti Sultan tidak perkenankan sidang itu dibuat.
Maka jika tiada perkenan Sultan, jangan nak kata sidang DUN didewan itu boleh sah, apatahlagi dibawah pokok.
Baru-baru ini, MB Perak Dato Zambry ada menyatakan disuratkhabar (13hb April) beliau akan meminta perkenan sultan untuk mengadakan sidang DUN dan menasihati Speaker DUN supaya bertindak mengikut Undang2.
Prof Madya Dr Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin
Pensyarah Undang2 (Jabatan Undang2 Awam) IIUM