Did the PMO follow all constitutional due process?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Prime Minister's Office maintained that all constitutional due processes were followed in the revocation of Emergency Ordinances.

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) asserted that Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and de facto law minister Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan adhered to all stipulated due processes under the Federal Constitution when announcing the revocation of the Emergency Ordinances (EOs). This assertion was made following public debate on the legality of the revocation.
Prime Minister Advised the King on Revocation

The PMO stated that the Prime Minister formally advised the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) on July 23 via a letter to revoke the Emergency Ordinances. This was followed by a further audience with the King on July 27, where the matter was again discussed. The government maintains that these actions were orderly and in accordance with legal provisions and the Federal Constitution.
Draft Repeal Ordinance Prepared by Attorney General's Chambers

A draft of the Emergency (Repeal) Ordinance 2021 was received by the PMO on July 22, having been prepared by the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC). This draft ordinance stipulated that all EOs assented to by the King during the Emergency period would be cancelled effective July 21.
Parliament Debate Not Deemed Necessary for Revocation

The Prime Minister conveyed the government's position that a parliamentary debate on the EOs was not required for their revocation. This stance was based on the advice provided by the Cabinet to the King for the annulment of the ordinances. The government referenced Article 150(2C) and (3) of the Federal Constitution, which suggest that EOs can be revoked or annulled prior to being presented before both Houses of Parliament.
Distinction Made Between Proclamation and Emergency Ordinances

Legal discourse has distinguished between the proclamation of an Emergency and the Emergency Ordinances themselves. While a proclamation of Emergency, as referenced in Lord Diplock's judgment in Teh Cheng Poh v PP (1979), may not require a formal instrument for revocation, Emergency Ordinances are considered primary legislation, akin to an Act of Parliament. Consequently, their revocation, or repeal, would typically necessitate a Repeal Ordinance, which itself requires assent and publication to become effective. The argument suggests that the process for revoking EOs must follow legislative procedures, differing from the revocation of the proclamation itself.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did the PMO follow all constitutional due process?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends