As per the second of the adopted court rules for requests for review, I have decided to dismiss this request.
In reaching this decision, I have consulted the following sources:
1) The provisions of the Constitution of The North Pacific empowering the Court and delineating its jurisdiction, namely
Constitution of The North Pacific Article 4:
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2) The precedent set by the court in the past when interpreting these provisions. In particular, in its judgment "Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific, In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on the definition of “affected party”", the court found that
The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation.
Applying this precedent, it is my opinion that the petitioner has failed to satisfy this standard. While providing a description of the allegedly illegal actions, nowhere in their post does the petitioner identify any specific rights they perceive to have been violated by these actions. Furthermore, the petitioner does not cite any laws whatsoever that they consider to have been broken, let alone establish a clear connection between said laws and the claimed effect of the actions described.
Though it is possible to make a reasonable inference as to which rights the petitioner perceives may have been violated, I believe it is preferable for the court to exercise restraint and, by dismissing the case, refrain from doing so. Indeed, such inferences would be an integral part of any judgment the court could render on this case as submitted. The inferences themselves would constitute findings of the court of far-reaching scope, considerably broader than what the petitioner intended to request. Considering the lack of appellate jurisdiction in The North Pacific, and the established binding effect of decisions of the court, the potential for unforeseen consequences abounds.
With the above in mind, I will take this opportunity to make some passing remarks on the previous court judgment I cited earlier. The court addressed the question of what the basis of the review is. Does review extend to checking all parts of the law against all potential constitutional issues? Or, does it involve reviewing legality in light of the issues raised by a specific request, in which case no basis for review would exist if no submissions were presented? The court adopted the second meaning, placing the burden on the petitioner to establish that they are an affected party, by means of specific submissions. By deciding so, the court imposed boundaries on its own power, and instructed judges to practice restraint when encountered with applicable situations. In light of the arguments I presented earlier, I find this to be a very wise instruction, and therefore have decided to uphold this precedent.
It may be useful to clarify at this point that the above does not constitute a decision of the court and does not amount to a binding interpretation of the law. The case is dismissed, and no decision on the legal questions it posits is made. The petitioner may now petition the entire court to overturn my decision to dismiss the case, as provided for by the second of the adopted court rules for requests for review. For the purposes of any such further action on this case, the entire court consists of Reginald Carmichael, Malashaan, and myself. As the adopted court rules do not specify any time interval within which a petition to overturn the dismissal may be made, I will provide the petitioner with a week to decide whether they wish to pursue such action.
