[R4R] Regarding 'Advisory Opinion of the Court of the North Pacific'

[TlomzKrano]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Previous court ruling number 17, Advisory Opinion of the Court of the North Pacific.

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?

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.

Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.

The opinion of the court in 2013 is wholly unique in that the court provided the opinion completely of its own volition, with no R4R or indictment filed to initiate such a process. The opinion clearly states it is advisory and has no effect on the law, and aims to be a proactive method for the court to share its own review of law as it applies to a regional legal matter.

This proactive action is explicitly unauthorized in the context of the quoted Constitutional clause above, as any review of law must originate from a request with proper standing. Further, a ‘compelling regional interest’ would authorize the waiver of a standing requirement, and not function as a way of allowing the court to initiate reviews internally.

The court has historically functioned as a reactionary body with this singular opinion being the exception. No where in the Legal Code or Constitution does it establish the ability for the Court to review law and issue opinions unprompted by an external request. Furthermore, the Court Rules and Procedures never address the process for initiating and executing an internally initiated review of law, with the only method for review being request based as indicated in the above quoted clauses.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is being proposed in this R4R.

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.
Standing derived by my position as Court Examiner, defined in Legal Code Section 3.6, Clause 34: "The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court."

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.
This request looks to address the legal validity of a previous court action which is unique in nature and not currently supported by any existing law or court procedure as detailed above. The opinion the court issued as a part of this highly irregular action stands, as with any other currently standing opinion, to influence future court actions and the expectations of the court’s capabilities. While it should be noted that this ruling of the court was purely advisory and did not establish any precedent through its contents, the existence of the opinion in its currently non-overturned state could be used as precedent should the court wish to initiate internal reviews of law in the future. Given that this ability is not expressly defined in law or court procedures, it is firmly in the interest of the region and the court to address this anomaly and establish its legal validity, or lack thereof.

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

 

[Pallaith]

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court does not recognize any responsible government official to be recognized as respondent, given this is a Court decision under review.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post.

 

[Pallaith]

The time for submitting briefs is over. The Court will now deliberate.

 

[Pallaith]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on Advisory Opinions
Opinion drafted by Justice Pallaith, joined by Chief Justice Attempted Socialism and Justice Eluvatar​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by TlomzKrano

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Constitution of The North Pacific.

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Chapter 5: Precedent and Appeals
Section 1: Precedent
1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.

The Court took into consideration the prior ruling by the Court Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General.

---

The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On Advisory Opinions
In the entire history of this Court under the current Constitution, there has only been a single time that this Court has rendered an advisory opinion, Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General. In that instance the Court was compelled to speak up, despite receiving no petition from an affected party, and the fact that it was the single time this occurred underscores the extraordinary moment the Court felt it was responding to. This extraordinary step carried as much weight as it did not only because it was not the norm, but also because when the Court renders an opinion on the law, it carries an inherent legitimacy and weight that simple remarks in citizen spaces or the Regional Assembly simply do not. The Court knew this and never rendered such an opinion again, nor did it refer to this opinion in any subsequent case. Nevertheless, this opinion is listed with all of the others, which do carry the weight of precedent, and as was intended when this opinion was issued, the Court is quite persuasive and arguing for a very particular way of looking at the law in the advisory opinion.

The petitioner asks us to examine this opinion, and to evaluate whether it was even possible for the Court to issue an advisory opinion in the first place. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that the clause that establishes the Court’s power of review restricts the compelling interest provision to questions of standing, rather than allowing the compelling interest to also allow the Court to disregard standing entirely and take matters into its own hands. The Court intended to send a strong message in its sole previous advisory opinion, and a major part of why that move had the impact it did was because it disregarded the very clear lines that the Court has been careful to follow ever since. The Court did not have the authority or the capacity to make such an opinion even at the time that it made it. Furthermore, an advisory opinion done by the Court’s own initiative is against the Court’s own procedures, which mandate that it be a reactive body. And an advisory opinion, even if divorced from a particular legal question or overturning existing law, nevertheless is an official Court decision and remains binding on justices. Such opinions create a problem, as they can be fairly said to be intended not to be taken as precedent, but nevertheless stand shoulder to shoulder with other case law that is binding and must be considered in subsequent reviews. Given the Constitution does not empower the Court to make such opinions, and it is the Court’s own practice not to do so, the best course is to state clearly that such opinions cannot be delivered and therefore cannot be considered when following existing precedent in deciding the outcome of requests for review.

The justices who make up this Court may from time to time feel compelled to speak out on issues of legal concern, or to challenge our region’s officials when they feel those officials are failing to properly discharge their duties. The members of this Court are still members of the Regional Assembly, and citizens of this region, and have many avenues to express these concerns. At worst, a Justice may find those concerns so compelling that they necessitate their recusal from any such issues that may find their way in front of this Court, so that they may more effectively speak on those issues and advocate for those issues outside of this Court. No matter how great a concern may be for any or all of the justices serving on the Court, it is never appropriate for the Court to use its authority, its legally binding and weighty voice, as a means to advocate for a particular issue. The Court is reactive, not proactive.

Holding
We find that the Court does not have the power to deliver advisory opinions in the absence of a properly filed request for review by an affected party or by someone else when there is a compelling regional interest in considering the request. We also affirm the petitioner’s argument, and find that the compelling regional interest consideration is intended to establish an exception to standing in requests for reviews, and is not a license for the Court to engage in reviews without a request from outside the Court. Accordingly, we invalidate the existing advisory opinion.