Request for Review: Constitutionality of Intelligence Exception to the FOIA

[Gaspo]

The FOIA contains, in relevant part, the following provision:

21. All activities by the designated regional intelligence services are exempt from this law.

The Constitution, which incorporates the Bill of Rights as equally binding and supreme over other laws, contains the following provision:

5. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

The Bill of Rights provides the following protections to all nations of The North Pacific:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.

and

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code.

Taken together, these elements of the law require all elements of the Government to abide by the fundamental principle of transparency. The Constitution, by incorporating the Bill of Rights in Article 1, extends its own supremacy to the Bill of Rights, thus preventing any law from disregarding the Bill of Rights, as noted by Article 11 of the Bill of Rights, and enforced by Article 6.5 of the Constitution.

However, when we look to Legal Code Chapter 6.3.21, we find a contradiction. The FOIA on the whole is very much in keeping with the transparency requirements imposed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, with the exception of Article 21. Article 21 completely exempts any hypothetical intelligence agencies from the oversight of the only piece of TNP law which actually enforces the principle of Transparency which we as a region hold so dear. Blanket exemptions from the Bill of Rights, which is an incorporated element of the inviolable Constitution, are not permissible, pursuant to Bill of Rights Article 11 and Constitution Article 6.5.

I therefore ask the Court to consider whether the above-cited element of the FOIA is in contradiction with the fundamental constitutional principle of Transparency, in that it exempts an entire government agency or agencies from ever having any obligation to abide by this principle. If the Court finds itself in agreement with my reasoning, I humbly request that the Court declare Article 21 of the FOIA to be unconstitutional, and order it to be stricken from the Legal Code.

 

[Abbey]

Review accepted.

Briefs on this review will be accepted for the next 48 hours.

 

[Abbey]

The period for briefs has ended.

The Court will now consider this matter.

 

[Sanctaria]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Constitutionality of the Intelligence Exception to the FOIA​

Opinion drafted by Sanctaria, joined by Abbey Anumia and punkd​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Gaspo.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

5. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

15. The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
16. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
17. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and
18. Citizens which do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.
19. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
20. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.
21. All activities by the designated regional intelligence services are exempt from this law.

The Court opines the following:

The issue before the Court is simple: Whether or not Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional due to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the transparent and accountable operations of its governmental authorities.

The first thing the Court looks at is the principle of constitutional supremacy. That is, that no legal document or law may contradict the Constitution. The Court finds that this principle is indeed in force in The North Pacific due to Article 6.5 of the Constitution and also section 11 of the Bill of Rights. At this point, the Court also wishes to confirm that under Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights stands a part of that Constitution.

Having established that no part of the legal code may contradict or supersede the Constitution, which we have also established includes the Bill of Rights, we now look to the question as to whether or not Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code contradicts the Constitution.

The piece of statute in question exempts regional intelligence services from the remit of Section 6.3 of the Legal Code, hereafter referred to as the Freedom of Information Act. It is the opinion of this Court that although Section 9 of the Bill of Rights guarantees the transparent operations of the government, it is only through the Freedom of Information Act in the Legal Code that nations may access undisclosed information; that is, the Freedom of Information Act governs the transparency of the governmental authorities, and specifies procedures on how to access undisclosed information.

Nations in The North Pacific are guaranteed transparency, and it is forbidden for governmental authorities to disregard the Constitution, and it is also forbidden to contradict the Constitution. This Court finds that the Bill of Rights does not create an exemption from transparency for any governmental authority, and similarly this Court finds that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not create an exemption from constitutional supremacy for any law regarding government authorities.

As such, it is the opinion of this Court that Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional and consequently directs the Speaker of the Regional Assembly to strike it from the Legal Code.

 

[Gaspo]

My thanks to the Court.