“The doctrine of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we have a written constitution. The power of Parliament and State Legislatures in Malaysia is limited by the Constitution, and they cannot pass any law as they please. Under our Constitution, written law may be invalid on one of these grounds: (1) Article 74; (2) in the case of both Federal and State written law, because it is inconsistent with the Constitution; (3) Article 75”.
The Malaysian Courts further saw to the implementation of this rule in several other cases, namely :
Chai Choon Hon v Ketua Polis Daerah Kampar
A condition was attached to a police permit to hold a dinner for DAP, the condition being that there should be only 7 speakers was struck down by the Courts because the said permit has already impose a time limit, which rendered the aforementioned condition unnecessary. This decision is said to be in line with the provisions of Article 10(1)(a) of the Constitution
Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Ismail
The defendant was charged for drug trafficking which was punishable with life imprisonment or death under S. 39B(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. While his trial was still going on, the law was deliberately amended to provide for a mandatory death penalty. At the final stage of the said trial, the PP suggests to the court to impose the enhanced penalty. The Court refused saying that such amendment could not be applied to the instant case, as it was only enacted after the offence was committed. At such, the decision of the said court was in line with the Article 7(1) of the Federal Constitution and the Delhi Declaration.
So, these are examples for the application of ROL in Malaysia. Hope it helps :)
No comments:
Post a Comment