[R4R] The power of the Speaker to require Deputy Speakers to break their oath

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
November 2, 2020, the Speaker noted the following:

St George:

Just a note - the Speakers Office will not be processing Wonderess's citizenship application. It will be left to go the full 14 days allowed by law. I am fully aware of the potential consequences of this action.

Click to expand...

In the same thread, it was clarified that this also meant Deputies are not allowed to process the application. The specific action being challenged is not the Speaker's refusal to process Wonderess's application for citizenship, but rather his instruction that his Deputies are not allowed to do so either.

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?'
Under article 2, section 10 of the Constitution, "[t]he Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties." Furthermore, under article 6, section 8, "[a]ll government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding." This requirement includes both the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers.

The content of the oath of office is set by chapter 4, section 1, clause 1 of the Legal Code. The oath, reads in full:

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

Click to expand...

Chapter 1, section 9, clause 25 of the Legal Code criminalises "the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence."

Clause 10 of the Bill of Rights includes the provision that "[n]o governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code." The question, then, is whether the Speaker has the power under the laws of this region to force a Deputy Speaker to act in a manner the Deputy reasonably and in good conscience believes violates his duties under the oath to office. (In this particular case, the requirement to exercise his power in an "unbiased" fashion.)

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Not that I am aware of. However, this application was filed with some haste, so I respectfully admit that I may have missed precedent relevant to this case.

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.
My ability to act, in good conscience, in a way I believe my oath of office requires me to is in jeopardy.

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.
The Speaker is an incredibly powerful office. It is, thus, without question in the interest of the region for the Court to determine whether the Speaker can force his Deputies to act in a way that ensures an applicant for citizenship will be ineligible for voting in the upcoming election. Such a power would pose a serious threat to this region's rule of law.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
In the second brief I filed, on behalf of Pigeonstan, in the proceedings surrounding Gross Misconduct & the vagueness doctrine [2020], I wrote the following:

In this Court's decision on the Delegate's Authority to Staff the Executive Branch, it "examined the specific nature of the request for review [and] [it] determined that [it] [was] unable to answer the specific question" (emphasis mine). The Court did not determine that R4Rs that affect current controversies/court cases cannot be accepted, rather it held that the "specific nature" of that request of review did not allow for the Court to answer it. In fact, this Court - in the very same decision - issued a decision on the Delegate's authority to staff the executive branch, while refusing to issue a decision on abc's allegation that his freedom of speech was violated. Now, how can one make sense of this decision? Quite simply, actually, by recognising that the Court - in part implicitly - made a distinction between two types of cases invloving current controversies:

1. R4Rs that request the Court to examine someone's behaviour based on case-specific facts. The Court held it could not answer to such requests, like the one abc posted, because a decision in favour of the filer "would presume the delegate's guilt, and limit the valid avenues for the defense to pursue when countering the criminal charge" and that "the information it would need in order to make any determination about whether abc's freedom of speech was violated is not of a nature easily obtained during the course of a request for review". The question I issued is not based on case-specific facts, but concerns a generally applicable constitutional question (any citizen could have asked the exact same question and the question would still make sense); no decision by this Court would "presume" anyone's guilt or limit their avenues to counter the charge, nor does this Court need any case-specific information and/or evidence to answer the question issued.
2. R4Rs that request the Court to examine a generally applicable constitutional question. Despite the Court refusing to comment on whether abc's freedom of speech specifically was violated, it did issue a decision with regards to the Delegate's authority to staff the executive branch, because that question is a generally applicable question. That is clearly the case here, because the question is whether a specific part of the Oath is unenforceable for voidness, something that would apply to every person, not just Pigeonstan.

So, because this Court is asked to examine a generally applicable constitutional question, and not a question that in any way relies on case-specific evidence or information, this court should accept the request in question.

Click to expand...

I believe this matter is one of the second category. The question is not whether the Speaker or his Deputies can legally refuse to deal with an application in the case here. Rather, the question is whether a Deputy may violate the instructions of the Speaker (which he ordinarily is subject to) if he reasonably and in good conscience believes this order requires him to violate the oath of office. This is a generally applicable, legal question.

This application is filed by me, also on behalf of Lady Raven Wing. Not all Deputies were able to review this prior to submission, so their absence from this application should not be interpreted as meaning they per se do not support it.

This application was submitted with a sense of emergency, meaning some information may be inadvertently missing; please do not hestitate to ask additional questions.

The Court is considering this request. A decision on acceptance or denial will hopefully be given shortly.

Can I ask @Lady Raven Wing to confirm whether they are a party to the request?

Can I also ask the petitioner/s to indicate whether they are minded to apply for the recusal of any Justice (including Oracle, who is THO)?

The Honourable @Zyvetskistaahn:

I do not seek to apply for the recusal of any Justice or THO at this moment.

I am a party to this R4R in regards to a desire to see it answered & considering the filed request a good argument, yes.

I may however (and have informed Peter of this) file a counter-argument should the one I can think of not be produced by someone else.

I accept this request for review.

I consider that the Speaker is the appropriate respondent to this request and I will notify them accordingly.

It appears to me that the matter raised is of significant urgency and, for that reason, I will limit the period for briefs to one day. Any brief should be submitted by (time=1604520000) (8pm 04/11/20 GMT (UTC)). Briefs submitted after that time may be disregarded by the Court.

Vivanco has told me that he is recusing himself from consideration of this case. A further Temporary Hearing Office will be appointed in due course.

In terms of briefs, I think that it may be of assistance to the Court for briefs to address two points in particular, though an individual may address any point they see fit. Those points are: first, whether this case is within the scope of the Court's power to "review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions", particularly with regard to the decision of the Court on Court Review of RA Proposals given that it appears the question being asked of the Court is, in essence, if the Speaker's decision is unlawful can it be disobeyed; and, second, the proper effect of Article 2, clause 10 of the Constitution that " 10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly." and of rule 2 of section 3 of the Rules of the Regional Assembly that " 2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. [...]"

EDIT: I omitted the date

I will not be making submissions.

@Goyanes is appointed Temporary Hearing Office in relation to this request for review.

-discarded-

A Brief in Support of the Petitioner.
Submitted by Dreadton, in his capacity as a citizen.

Due to the abbreviated nature of the proceeding, this brief will be short. I am available to expand on any points the court or others may request.

Under the Courts Ruling in Court Review of RA Proposals, does the actions of St George constitute a government action?

The court established in this ruling that actions done by private citizens and RA proposals are not government actions. RA Proposals become government actions once they are passed by the Regional Assembly. It further established that actions taken by a citizen in the capacity of their elected office would be considered a government action. In this petition, St George posted in his capacity as Speaker of the Regional Assembly and not that of a private citizen. He posted in a thread that was specifically established as a formal means of communication the actions and policies of the Speakers office as established by post one of the thread. This is further supported by St Georges statement that he had directed the Deputy Speakers to act in a manner that is consistent with his policy. A private citizen cannot direct the Deputy Speakers to act. They can recall them, or utilize the courts to seek remedy, only the Speaker can issue directives to Deputy Speakers.

Is the directive in question an illegal act?

Yes.

The Speaker is treating a single residence citizen application differently then other application due to personal and not legal reasons. While the Speaker does have 14 days to process applications, there is no law or history to support his actions in this manner. Section 9 of the Bill of Rights does outlaw this kind of action by guaranteeing equal and fair treatment under the law. By treating this one application differently and publicly announcing such, the Speaker is not giving fair treatment as required by the law. The Speaker is delaying the citizen application of Wonderess in order to punish him for his comments made on another medium. This is a violation of the Bill of Rights Section 6. The Speakers statement on this policy allows for no other interpretation of his actions then to see them as an attempt to punish or shame the application for his actions, effectively usurping the authority of the law, the court, and the region in order to make a political statement. Since the Speakers actions are not permissible under the law, it can only be viewed as an abusive of power and a violation of Section 5 of the Bill of Rights.

Can the Speaker order the Deputies to not process the citizen application?

Yes and No.

The Speaker may removed the power of his deputies to process citizen applications. He cannot instruct them to ignore a single application for unlawful reasons. The Speaker has given the authority to the Deputies to process applications for citizenship as established by the Speakers Desk thread. The same thread establishes that the Speaker has instructed his deputies to not process the application in question. Since he has not stated that he has removed the authority of the Deputies to process all citizen applications, we must rely on the record before us and assume that he has not till stated otherwise.

Since it was earlier established that the Speakers action in this manner violates the law, the Speaker cannot further use his authority to compel another to participate in an unlawful action. With the Speaker having not established that he has removed the authority to process all citizen applications from his Deputies, then the power to do so remains . As such the Deputies can process the application in question in accordance with the law, until such time as the Speaker removes their authority to process all applications.

Brief for Petitioner
In the matter of The power of the Speaker to require Deputy Speakers to break their oath
Submitted by saintpeter, Petitioner, in his capacity as Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly

Mr Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

The petition the Court faces today is one that does not just concern trivial regulations; it concerns the very promise of the rule of law. If a Speaker can order his subordinates—the Deputy Speakers—to break their legally-mandated oath, the very basic protections of the Bill of Rights, meant to protect citizens against the abuse of power by governmental officials, lose their weight.

I will first discuss this Court's authority to review this request under Court Review of RA Proposals [2018]. Subsequently, I will address the nature of the powers and authority of Deputy Speakers and their relation with the Speaker's powers and authority.

Court's authority to review this request
In Court Review of GA Proposals [2018] (henceforth "CRGAP"), this Court unanimously found "that justices are prohibited by the Constitution [Article 5, Clause 1] from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action." Hence, it follows that this Court may only rule on the matter the Petitioner sought a review of if it concerns "a law, government policy, or government action." The challenged decision by St George, acting in his official capacity as Speaker of the Regional Assembly, qualifies as such.

First, it is clear that the matter before the Court today does not concern "a law," for no law is subject to review in this request. However, the matter does concern a "government action," or alternatively a "government policy." Governments in the abstract do not act on themselves. Instead, government officals act under their governmental authority. (For example, if the Speaker unilaterally decides to rescind the citizenship of a citizen, they cannot avoid scrutiny by claiming they are not the government in the abstract.) This is an important distinction because it means that the actions of individual government officials are subject to review by this Court. However, as this Court clarified in CRGAP, not all actions by government officials are per se government action. When a government official submits a proposal to the Regional Assembly, they "are not acting as a government official, but as a private citizen." The reason for this finding was that "[t]he ability to make a proposal to the Regional Assembly is afforded to every citizen in The North Pacific". Hence, the action did not require governmental authority. It logically follows that any action taken that requires governmental authority is to be considered a "government action."

Having clarified this general consideration, we move to the specific "government action" in this case. As made clear in statements at the Speaker's Desk, St George, acting in his offical capacity as Speaker, decided that the Speaker's Office was not to process Wonderess's citizenship application. This decision was clearly taken under the governmental authority granted to St George in his capacity as Speaker of the Regional Assembly; it was not phrased as a suggestion and the Speaker can only direct the Deputy Speakers to do or not do something while acting in his official capacity (for they are, outside of it, citizens equal under the law). Hence, because this decision was taken under the Speaker's governmental authority, it qualifies as a "government action."

One may suggest that decisions are not "actions" but it would be immediately clear to the Court that exempting government decisions from judicial scrutiny would be unreasonable and arbitrary under the text and framework of the law of The North Pacific. Even if this Court were to accept this questionable line of thinking, a directive explicitly instructing other members of the branch of government not to process an application consitutes a "government policy." Policy is distinguishable from law in that the latter is created by the Regional Assembly, whereas the former by government officials. Both may govern the conduct of officials, but whereas every policy can be discarded by at least one official, laws cannot. The directive to the Deputy Speakers, created by the Speaker and equally discardable by the same, then constitutes a "government policy."

In conclusion, the decision issued by the Speaker constitutes a "government action" and/or "government policy," and is thus subject to judicial review. This is both the correct decision under cited precedent and under the constitutional structure.

The powers of the Speaker and their Deputies
The Speaker, a constitutionally-mandated elected offical, has broad discretion under the Constitution and Legal Code (e.g. Article 2, Clause 8 of the Constitution). One of their powers and duties is to evaluate those applying for citizenship and processing them within 14 days (section 6.1, Legal Code). This power and duty in particular is important to this dispute.

The power of the Speaker is, however, not unregulated. The law requires the Speaker to take the oath of office established in clause 1 of section 4.1 of the Legal Code (see App. A). Similarly, even though the Constitution says little about the regulations surrounding the actions of Deputy Speakers ("The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly." Art. 2, Cl. 10, Const.), the Rules of the Regional Assembly provides: "Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker." (cl. 2, sect. 3; emphasis mine). Hence, the Deputy Speaker may be delegated enormous authority by the Speaker, but he (as is only natural) remains subject to the same limits as the Speaker.

The implicit hierarchy of power, though, also means that Deputy Speakers are subject to the instructions, directives, decisions, policies, etc., established by the Speaker. But these too are not exempt from the law of TNP. Like any government action and policy, these cannot violate the laws like the Bill of Rights, nor may officials violate their oath of office because of them. Indeed, a Deputy Speaker that exercises his power in following an order that violates his oath of office himself commits a criminal offence, namely failure to abide by this oath. The laws never provide a Befehl ist Befehl defence. The Deputy Speaker, then, is faced with two choices: violate his oath of office, mandated by law, or violate the Speaker's directive. If he were to be still subject to this directive, both options that he is faced with would be unlawful. Such a choice, effectively forcing a government official to violate the law, indisputably violates the official's rights to "due process of law" and "fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution" under clause 9 of the Bill of Rights. Thus, this Court cannot conclude that both the oath of office and the Speaker's directives are binding when they contradict each other.

The Court is then faced with a relatively simple choice: should the Deputy Speaker be able to violate the Speaker's directives in keeping with his legally-mandated oath of office or vice versa. It should obviously conclude the former. Hence, this Court should find that if a Deputy Speaker reasonably and in good conscience believes a decision by the Speaker would require him to violate his oath of office, he should be able to disregard it.

The Petitioner thanks the Court for its consideration of the above brief.

Appendix A

1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A Brief in Support of the Speaker
Submitted By Lady Raven Wing, in their capacity as Deputy Speaker

By both nature and the time-crunch of this Request for Review, this brief will be short. The author will remain available to elucidate any points within.

Regarding the nature of this review:
By the petitioners own initial request for review, this is not a matter of whether or not the Speaker has violated their own oath, but whether the Speaker can compel their deputies to their deputies to do the same. Questions as to whether or not the deputies are thus violating their own oaths are of no matter, as the actual question is about the delegate powers of the Speaker. Furthermore, the legality of the Speaker's has not yet been determined at all. Thus, whether or not any Deputy Speakers are at risk of oath violation is immaterial in this review, as that question is not actually present. The only question to be answered is whether the Speaker can forbid their deputies from carrying out a specific action, without removing the broader power so delegated.

Regarding the Speaker's Delegation of Powers:
These are the rules governing Deputy Speakers:

Grosseschnauzer:

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

Click to expand...

Of note here is that the Speaker is specifically delegating their powers to any Deputy Speakers, and may do so as they want, without removing any aspect of their own power. This is critical, as it would clearly indicate that the Speaker may take back any of these powers at any time. While it may be unorthodox to take back the power of a Deputy Speaker only over a specific matter, rather than the general power governing it, it is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility for the Speaker to have this power.

Indeed, the latter sentence of the relevant rules bears out this interpretation yet more, to the point that Deputy Speakers are more properly understood as extra hands of the Speaker to do with as they want, not mini-Speakers endowed with some of the Speaker's power. The sentence clearly indicates that the use powers of the Deputy Speaker are subject to the same considerations as the use of the powers of the Speaker, but notably the sentence further indicates that the power being used is the Speaker's own, not the separate power of the Deputy Speaker. Ergo, the power of the Deputy Speaker is further understood to be the power of the Speaker, for which the latter may direct the former to use as the latter sees fit.

Conclusion:
Thus, the power of the Deputy Speaker in this matter does not exist if the Speaker specifically precludes it, as they have, as it is only the power of the Speaker being used as they directed. While not the actual topic of this review, this would indicate that Deputy Speakers are not liable for any violations of their oaths in this manner, as they have been legally precluded from acting by the Speaker, not by their own choice.

A Brief in Support of the Speaker
Submitted By Praetor, as a private citizen

I submit to the Court the following brief. My apologies for the shorter nature of the brief given the shortened phase for submitting briefs.

Standing of the Petitioner
The standing of the petitioner seems clear given that the petitioner is currently a Deputy Speaker who is affected by the change in instructions from the Speaker.

The Court's Authority to Review This Action
Given that it was in the Speaker's capacity as Speaker and not citizen that he instructed his Deputies to not process Wonderess's application, it is clear that it was a government action creating a government policy to not process Wonderess's citizenship application.

The Ability of a Deputy Speaker to Ignore an Instruction of a Speaker
It has been clearly established in the previous briefs that the Speaker is able to delegate their authority to Deputies Speaker. This delegation may be in whole or in part. Without the Speaker delegating any authority to a Deputy Speaker, that Deputy would have no authority to accomplish any of the duties of the Speaker or exercise any power. I would submit for the Court a scenario: The Speaker explicitly instructs his Deputies that they may deal with business pertaining to the Regional Assembly (i.e. scheduling, opening, and closing votes) but they are not permitted to process citizenship applications. The Speaker becomes inactive and does not process citizenship applications. It is not possible for a Deputy Speaker to then go and process the citizenship applications as they do not have the authority to do so (and as a note, it would not be a violation of their oath by not processing the citizenship applications as they do not have the authority to do so).

Similarly, in this situation, a Deputy Speaker would not be able to go process the citizenship application of Wonderess as the Speaker has effectively removed the authority of the Deputy Speaker to process the citizenship application of Wonderess—while making no other restriction on the citizenship application of others. There is no violation of the oath of the Deputy Speaker as they cannot violate their oath because they did not do something that they were not permitted to do.

In essence, a Deputy Speaker may not ignore an instruction of the Speaker when that instruction relates specifically to power that the Speaker can or has delegated to the Deputy Speaker.

The Illegality of the Directive
Whether the Speaker treating an applicant for citizenship is illegal or not is irrelevant to this particular R4R. The matter at hand is the ability of a Deputy Speaker to ignore instructions of the Speaker. I would urge the Court to disregard any points set out in previous briefs attempting to ascertain the illegality of the actions as it is not the proper forum.

I thank the Court for their time and would be more than willing to elaborate on any of the points I have set forth given the shorten period to submit a brief.

I am grateful, and I am sure the rest of the bench are, for the succinct and helpful briefs that have been submitted. Briefs that are submitted now may be disregarded as being filed late. The Court will endeavour to determine this review as soon as is practicable.

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by saintpeter.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by Dreadton, saintpeter, Lady Raven Wing, and Praetor.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 2. The Regional Assembly:

10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

Article 4. The Court:

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

The Bill of Rights for 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. 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.

[...]

11. 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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Section 4.1: Oath of Office:

1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Section 1.9: Gross Misconduct:

25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of Rules of the Regional Assembly:

Section 3. Deputy Speaker and Vacancies:

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Standing and the Definition of Affected Party:

The Court opines that an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.

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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Court Review of RA Proposals:

Furthermore, a proposal before the RA cannot be considered a law or a government policy until it is enacted. The Court is a reactive body, and both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution Article 5, Clause 1 preclude the Court from ruling on something that hasn't actually happened yet, such as potential violation of rights that might be done if a proposal becomes a law.

This decision does not apply solely to requests to review proposals of the Regional Assembly. More broadly, the Court finds that justices are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on the Speaker's Power to Schedule Votes:

The particular action at issue here was taken by a Deputy Speaker, but that does not have any bearing on the principles to be applied. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly allow the Deputy Speaker to be delegated any power or responsibility of the Speaker, with the laws that apply to the Speaker applying in a like manner to their Deputies.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

Standing

This is a request for review by saintpeter and Lady Raven Wing. They are both Deputy Speakers. They have been directed by the Speaker not to take an action, namely not to process an application for citizenship by a resident, Wonderess.

They do not, in terms, contend that that direction is unlawful. Rather, the question their review seeks to answer can be put in this way: if that direction, or another, by the Speaker is unlawful, can they disobey it.

The Court is satisfied that the petitioners do have standing to bring this request for review. Both are personally affected by a government action or policy, namely the Speaker's direction that they do not accept an application for citizenship (whether the direction is better understood as an action or a policy does not make a difference for the purposes of this review). They do reasonably perceive their rights to be infringed, as the Speaker's direction exposes them to a risk of criminal liability if the direction is unlawful (though their liability would not turn solely on that issue), and that effect on their rights is clearly connected to the direction.

Jurisdiction

The Court was concerned, on considering the review, that the issue it was being asked to consider may be without the Court's jurisdiction. The Court in its decision on Court Review of RA Proposals held that the Court's review power is limited to reviewing extant laws, policies or actions. The Court is incapable of considering a review of a hypothetical future action.

The framing of this request for review, as asking whether it would be lawful for a Deputy Speaker to disobey a direction of the Speaker, appeared to the Court to risk straying into answering a hypothetical by asking whether a future action by a Deputy Speaker could be lawful. However, the Court considers that, more properly, this request can be understood as asking whether it is lawful for the Speaker to direct a Deputy Speaker not to take a specific action within a class of actions that a Deputy Speaker is empowered to take. That question is within the scope of the Court's authority to answer.

The Court does not need to answer, and is not asked by the request to answer, the question of whether the Speaker's underlying decision not to accept the application for citizenship made by Wonderess is lawful. Moreover, it is not apparent at this time that the petitioners would have standing to challenge that decision and answering that question could prejudice the Speaker's defence in criminal proceedings, which is of particular concern given a request for indictment has in fact been filed. The Court will, therefore, not answer that question.

The Role of the Deputy Speaker

The Constitution empowers the Speaker to appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. The Constitution allows the role of Deputy Speaker to be regulated by both law and the Regional Assembly's rules.

No particular provision in relation to Deputy Speakers has been made by law, however, the Regional Assembly has exercised its power to regulate them through its Rules. The Rules effectively mirror the Constitution and allow the Speaker to delegate any power or duty to a Deputy Speaker; while the Rules cannot determine the meaning of the Constitution, which is superior law, the Court does find that the Rules correctly state the position under the Constitution, namely that Deputy Speakers exercise the delegated power of the Speaker. They further provide that such a delegation does not relieve the Speaker of their powers or duties and that, when acting under a delegation, the Deputy Speaker is subject to the same constraints as the Speaker.

The conclusion that flows from this is that the Speaker may determine the powers and duties of a Deputy Speaker. Neither the Constitution nor the Rules convey that the Speaker must delegate all of their powers and duties to a Deputy Speaker. Were the position that the Speaker may only delegate the whole of their powers and duties, the far more obvious framing of the provisions would simply be "A Deputy Speaker will have the same powers and duties as the Speaker". The ability to delegate implies the ability to choose which powers to delegate. That position is also consistent with other government officials: the Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and that is understood to allow the Delegate to constrain the powers of executive officers to certain tasks or areas.

Nature of Delegation

This raises a question as to the nature of the delegation. Does it have to be by reference to a general power or duty (for instance, the power to administer votes in the Regional Assembly) or can it be more specific (the power to administer a given vote)?

The Court notes, again, that the Constitution and the Rules do not convey that either general or specific delegations are impermissible. However, it does not follow from this that there is no limit: general limits on government power may impose one. It has been argued that a specific non-delegation by the Speaker, in relation to a power that the Speaker generally allows a Deputy Speaker to exercise, could infringe on the right to equal protection. If that were so, the argument goes, specific non-delegation may be unlawful.

However, the Court considers that similar arguments could properly be made for general non-delegations. If the Speaker did not delegate the power to remove citizenship and then failed to exercise that power or chose to do so unequally, that could infringe the right equal protection or breach the Speaker's duty to promptly remove citizens, but it does not follow that such failures by the Speaker mean that the Court can find a Deputy Speaker gains the Speaker's power.

In truth, where the Speaker by action or omission violates a nation's rights, it is the action or omission itself which violates them, not any lack of delegation. The nation does not have any right to have a Deputy Speaker to undertake or refrain from any action, except to the extent that the Deputy Speaker has been delegated the Speaker's power to do so. That this is so follows from the provision of the Rules that "Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker". The answer for such a nation is to challenge the substantive action or omission by the Speaker, not the lack of delegation nor any inaction by the Deputy Speaker.

Moreover, there are circumstances where specific delegation or non-delegation is actively desirable. A Speaker may wish to train a Deputy Speaker and, therefore, allow them to process a particular citizenship application or administer a particular vote, there is no good reason to say that, in doing so, the Speaker thereby allows the Deputy Speaker to admit citizens in general or administer any vote. Conversely, a Speaker may consider that a Deputy Speaker could be perceived as having an interest in a particular proposal before the Regional Assembly and, therefore, remove from them the power to make decisions about it, it is unclear why that should be unlawful or should mean the Deputy Speaker cannot make decision on unrelated proposals.

The Court, therefore, concludes that the Speaker may make either general or specific delegations. Neither is without the scope of the wording of the Constitution or the Rules, nor can a failure to delegate itself infringe on a nation's rights so as to implicitly limit that scope, it is the substantive action or omission of the Speaker that does so. A non-delegation is therefore not unlawful merely because of how the Speaker carries out the substantive, non-delegated duties.

The Direction in this Case

In this case, the Speaker appears to have given to his Deputy Speakers the power and duty, in general, of admitting citizens. Naturally, when doing so Deputy Speakers are bound to obey the law, as the Speaker is. However, he has also directed them not to process the specific application of Wonderess and he has undertaken not do so himself.

The wording of the direction, that Deputy Speakers must "act in accordance with the statement [the Speaker] made saying the Office will not be processing Wonderess' application" is one which clearly varies the general delegation to exclude the processing of Wonderess' application. The Court is satisfied that, properly understood, that is the effect of the direction and that, as a result, the Deputy Speakers have no power or duty to process Wonderess' application.

The Court finds, therefore, that there is no need for the Deputy Speakers to disobey the Speaker's direction in order to comply with their legal obligations, because they are not, in relation to that application, exercising the powers and duties of the Speaker and so are not within the scope of rule 2, section 3 of the Rules and have no obligation to process the application. Indeed, if the Deputy Speakers sought to process the application, they would not be exercising the Speaker's power in doing so and their actions would be of no effect.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the nature of the power of Deputy Speakers is that it is delegated to them by the Speaker. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly do not place express limits on the nature of that delegation. While an act or omission of the Speaker can, plainly, infringe on a nation's rights or violate their duty to obey the law, it does not follow that doing so has any effect on the Speaker's decision to delegate. There are also strong reasons to think that specific delegation or non-delegation would be permissible. The Court, therefore, finds that the Speaker may delegate their power either specifically or generally and, if they have delegated it generally, may remove specific matters from the scope of delegation.

The Court is satisfied that the Speaker has, in this case, not delegated to his Deputy Speakers the power to process Wonderess' application. That non-delegation is not unlawful. The Deputy Speakers do not, therefore, have any power or duty to process the application. The Court therefore concludes that it is not contrary to their legal obligations not to act, as their obligations as Deputy Speakers arise only where they have a power and duty to act.

I thank the court for their timely decision, and further thank all those who submitted briefs, especially @Praetor.

I thank the Court for its prompt consideration and answering of this matter.

You're welcome @St George.

I thank the Court for their time and the ruling.

Thank you for the time and ruling.