Request for Review: the appointing of Deputy Ministers to Deputy Speakers

[Goyanes]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The recent appointment of Deputy Ministers Yukkira (Culture/Home Affairs) and ABC (Home Affairs) as Deputy Speakers. Link.

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

Article 7

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.

4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.

10. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.

Article 7, Section 2 of the Constitution states that Government officials are any officials appointed by constitutionally mandated elected officials, therefore making cabinet ministers government officials. Then, Article 7, Section 3 states that the "executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category" Since ministers are government officials, and deputy ministers are appointed by government officials, my interpretation is that this makes Deputy Ministers also government officials.

Furthermore, Article 7, Section 10 in the Constitution states that "No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law." As far as I am aware, that means that being a Deputy Minister and a Deputy Speaker violates the law. However, as the status of this type of situation has never been clear to begin with, I wish that the court would opine on this matter.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

None that I have been able to locate.

EDIT: I located a ruling and associated clarification:
Ruling: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8097726&t=7057305
Clarification: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8097809&t=7057305

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated. If you are submitting this request in your capacity as the Attorney General or their designee, please note that here instead.

I am submitting this request in my capacity as Attorney General of the North Pacific.

5. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

None.

 

[Goyanes]

Note to the court: Supporting court case was found and edited into the post.

 

[bootsie]

The Court hereby accepts this request. The brief submission period will last five days, ending on (time=1516321380).

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

sigh

In this brief, I would like to make two major points.

First: the opinion of the court cited in this request predates the language in the constitution categorizing and defining the various government officials, and should not be considered an interpretation of the constitution as it currently stands. In fact, that ruling was considered so excessively broad and expansive of the definition of government official that the Officials Amendment Bill was passed later in the year to fix the problems it created. The explicit will of the Region Assembly, manifest in the Constitution, should be considered supreme over the language of that ruling wherever it conflicts.

Second: Anyone appointed to a position by a cabinet minister is not a government official. We can see this clearly in the Constitution Article 7, Clause 2:

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

Under this clause, there are only three types of government officials:

1. The Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General;
2. Officials appointed by the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General; and
3. Members of the Security Council

The language in Article 7 clauses 3, 4, and 5 (government officials appointed by government officials) seems recursive at first glance, but it is actually constrained by clause 2. We can see this plainly if we test them against the three criteria above. Let's say a Minister appoints a Deputy Minister. Is that appointee the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, or a Justice? Clearly not. Are they a Security Councilor? Of course not. Were they appointed by the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, or a Justice? No, they were appointed by a minister. Therefore, they are not a government official. The only "government officials appointed by government officials" in the executive branch are those appointed by the Delegate and the Attorney General, since they are the only constitutionally mandated government officials (CMEOs) in the executive branch. Officials they appoint cannot then appoint more government officials, because they are not themselves CMEOs. Therefore, anyone they appoint, while they may assist them in their duties, or gain access to certain forum areas, are not actually government officials under the constitution.

In later conversations with r3n, the author of the Officials Amendment Bill, I learned that it was his original intent that the definition of government official be recursive. However, he acknowledged that he inadvertently constrained the definition in clause 2. This point did not come up in the discussion of the bill, since the main focus was on exempting security councilors from the restrictions on holding multiple offices. That is the reason that the wording is somewhat confusing, but a logical analysis of the article as a whole clearly shows that only CMEOs can appoint government officials.

 

[SillyString]

First: the opinion of the court cited in this request predates the language in the constitution categorizing and defining the various government officials, and should not be considered an interpretation of the constitution as it currently stands. In fact, that ruling was considered so excessively broad and expansive of the definition of government official that the Officials Amendment Bill was passed later in the year to fix the problems it created. The explicit will of the Region Assembly, manifest in the Constitution, should be considered supreme over the language of that ruling wherever it conflicts.

For reference, the ruling being cited was issued on June 9, 2013. At the time it was issued, the section of the Constitution that deals with government officials read:

1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.
2. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
4. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
5. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
6. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices may be established by law.

Debate on the bill to replace this section, in response to the ruling that was issued, began on October 19, 2013, and in the opening post, r3n made clear that his bill was partly in response to the ruling that was issued. He stated:

We have also had at least two court decisions on this issue, both of them creating considerable commentary over their effects and unresolved ambiguities. I believe this amendment addresses these issues by providing explicit definitions for all these terms.

The bill was passed into law on November 3, 2013, and was signed by the delegate 3 days later. It has been slightly amended since then, to add language regarding the assigned branch of temporary replacements for government officials, and to allow for exceptions to the restrictions to be established by law (such as for election commissioners). However, the fundamentals have not been altered.

 

[Goyanes]

After further deliberation with the office, I sincerely apologize to the court for this waste of time, and respectfully withdraw tis R4R.

 

[bootsie]

The Court acknowledges the withdrawal. Shall the Attorney General’s Office or any affected party wish to pursue this matter in the future, please do not hesitate to file another Request for Review.