[R4R] Regarding "On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding"

[TlomzKrano]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Previous court ruling number 31, On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding.

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?

The Speaker will process applications within 7 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.

The current existing law governing membership of the Regional Assembly, commonly also known as ‘citizenship’, stipulates that if the Speaker fails to process a citizenship application within seven days, the application will be automatically processed and granted citizenship.

The above linked court ruling states that the oath becomes binding when, among other requirements, “The applicant has neither been accepted nor rejected after 14 days pass from the date of their application.”

The court ruling was correct for its time, when the existing law in November of 2013 allowed 14 days instead of 7. However, given the passing of the Accelerated Admission Act , this ruling is no longer in line with current law.

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Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is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 a ruling by the Court that was issued during a period of time in which the laws governing membership of the regional assembly, also referred to as citizenship, allowed more time for the speaker to process applications than current law allows. This is a simple discrepancy that touches an important part of the citizenship process. It is therefore in the interest of the region, and all those who may ever apply for citizenship, that this discrepancy be addressed so as to preserve the accuracy of standing precedent.

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

 

[Eluvatar]

This request for review is accepted. I will serve as Moderating Justice. I do not recognize any respondent government official, as we're reviewing a Court decision.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from affected parties. You have five days.

 

[Eluvatar]

The five days are up. Expect a ruling soon.

 

[Eluvatar]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on 'On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding'
Opinion drafted by Justice Eluvatar, joined by Chief Justice Attempted Socialism and Justice Pallaith​

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 3: The Delegate and Vice Delegate
13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.

The Court took into consideration the prior rulings by the Court On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, On Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly, On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, and On Defunct Rulings

---

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 the Court’s Prior Ruling
This Court is asked to reconsider one of its prior rulings in light of a change that was made to the legal code since that opinion was delivered. That ruling, On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, was concerned with defining the scope of application of the citizenship oath in time (when is one bound by it?). In applying the Court's test as outlined in On Defunct Rulings, we conclude that the Court's ruling was correct at the time. It is consistent with current law in all respects but the timing of automatic citizenship: at the time, 14 days without rejection meant automatic admission to citizenship. Today, the law requires applications to be processed within 7 days. As the ruling explicitly references 14 days, that part of the ruling is defunct.

Holding
As the case was properly decided and the Court's consideration of the time when the citizenship oath is binding, including its application of On Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly, is consistent with existing Constitutional and legal language and affirmed again by this decision, we find that only a narrow portion of our prior ruling On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, concerning the application of the oath after 14 days without acceptance or rejection, is now defunct as precedent. Therefore, that portion of the ruling ("14 days") will be modified with strikethrough tags, acknowledging its obsolescence while preserving it for historical purposes.