[R4R] Loss of Citizenship by Government Officials

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

I request that the Court review the legally prescribed consequences of a government official losing citizenship without said official's office being abandoned.

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 6 of the Constitution:

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office.

Click to expand...

Legal Code Section 4.2:

9. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it. An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
10. An "absence" in an office means that the holder of the office is by law temporarily prevented from exercising the duties of their office. An absent officer may be replaced for the duration of their absence as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.

Click to expand...

Under Article 6 of the Constitution, the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, SC members, Justices, and any officials appointed by the preceding must maintain citizenship while in office. However, neither the Constitution nor the Legal Code lay out any clear process for what is to occur should such an official lose citizenship while in office. Should an official lose citizenship, they would be removed from their office as an enforcement of the Constitution. This would mean that the office is considered vacant, and "may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body" pending an election.

However, the nature of citizenship is such that it is quite easy for most individuals to regain it once lost. Should an official experience a brief lapse in citizenship, it makes little sense for them to be replaced until the next election. Losing citizenship is arguably a temporary absence by its very nature, meaning that a government official who loses citizenship could be considered absent, without the office being considered vacant. In that event, said official "may be replaced for the duration of their [lack of citizenship] as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body."

Both of these interpretations are arguably correct under the Legal Code, yet they are inherently contradictory.

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

No prior rulings exist on the matter that I am aware of.

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.

Bill of Rights:

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. 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.

Click to expand...

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights guarantees every nation in The North Pacific a government that operates on the "principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency." If there is not a clear procedure regarding the loss of citizenship by a member of the region's government, nations cannot know how members of said government are to be held accountable for losing citizenship. This also infringes on the transparency of the government due to the aforementioned lack of a clear procedure.

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

A government official experiencing a future lapse in citizenship is hardly outside the realm of possibility. Were such to occur, there would be two contradictory interpretations as to what actions should be undertaken by the government regarding the now-empty position.

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

I do not.

Regarding the compelling regional interest in resolving this request, I would like to add that the issue described above could easily lead to nations seeing certain government officials in the future as illegitimate, thereby undermining the faith of individual nations in their government and compromising regional stability as a whole.

I deny this request for review.

I do not consider the Court has jurisdiction to decide the request. The Court’s jurisdiction on review is to “review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions” and no challenge is made to the constitutionality of any law nor to the legality of any policy or action. I, therefore, deny the request for that reason

I do not think the petitioner has standing to bring the request. The petitioner is not personally affected in any meaningful way. Only a very general standing, which any nation could maintain, is advanced, that cannot be sufficient to be an affected party, as a personal effect must be shown. I would also deny for this reason.

I also do not think there is a compelling regional interest in resolving the request. The fact that some scenario where a decision could apply may arise in future is not sufficient, the Court cannot accept prospective reviews and can deal only with a concrete law, policy or action which is challenged as set out above. Even were that not the case, I do not think there would be a sufficient interest in resolving this request in the abstract now, the possibility of differing interpretations of the law would not be enough to be a compelling regional interest nor would the hypothetical potential for such difference to lead to an official being regarded as illegitimate. I would also deny for these reasons.

I thank the Court for its time.