Netanyahu in response to a petition to the High Court on the issue of the mandate: "The people are the sovereign"

Prime Minister Olmert responded to a petition filed by the High Court on whether it is possible to prevent the assembly of the government from being imposed on him, saying it was "an attempt to drag the court to an issue that is not the court's authority, but the decision of the electorate only"

Netanyahu in response to a petition to the High Court on the issue of the mandate: "The people are the sovereign"

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded Sunday to a petition filed by the High Court on whether it is possible to prevent the government from being imposed on him, and asked to "reject it outright." In a reply, submitted by him and the Likud, it is said in Democracy who decides who will lead The people - this is the people, not anyone else. Otherwise it's just not democracy. "

According to Netanyahu, the petitioners are "trying to prevent the electorate from choosing the candidate they think is worthy of leading the State of Israel, ignoring the explicit law provisions on the matter. The petition constitutes an attempt to drag the court to an issue that is not 'just', not at all within the jurisdiction of the honorable court and not at all It should come to the door of the honorable court, but only to the constituency. Only for this reason should the petition be rejected out of hand. "

More in Walla! NEWS

"It is appropriate to dismiss the petition outright." Netanyahu (Photo: Reuters)

PM Benjamin Netanyahu at a Cabinet Meeting, December 29, 2019 (Photo: Reuters)

It is also argued that the hearing in the petition "shatters the hard core of the principle of separation of powers and the balance and braking system in a democratic state. There is no place for the honorable court, however respectful, to take the place of the electorate. This is an entirely political issue that needs to be decided solely by The public, and there is no room for the Honorable Court's intervention in the discretion of the President of the State, in deciding which Knesset member to entrust the task of assembling the government. "

It was also stated that the receipt of the petition would result in a situation where "a single public official (the attorney general) - as high as he is - will determine instead of the general public who can run the state and who is not."

Netanyahu, through his lawyers, argued that the Penhasi-Deri rule, which required the ministers then to resign from their positions following indictments filed against them, on his legal status, argues that in their case "they would disagree that if they were denied it would lead to a conviction" He also noted that the indictments against him include "precedent charges relating to communication relations with the Executive and the Legislature, with careful enforcement, ignoring the current state of communication with the said authorities."

The bulldozer victory: When Netanyahu's achievement meets Mendelblit's fear

"A lone public official, however high-ranking, will be in place of the general public." Mendelblit (Photo: Shlomi Gabay)

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit arrives at the parting ceremony of Silk Bud, Jewish Border Patrol Jerusalem, December 18, 2019 (Photo: Shlomi Gabay)

The petition was filed on behalf of 67 high-tech people, who demanded that Attorney General Avihai Mandelblit compel him to publish an opinion on the possibility of imposing a government train on Netanyahu. The hearing on the petition is scheduled for Tuesday, and will be heard by President Esther Chaim, Judge Hanan Meltzer and Judge Uzi Fogelman. These are the three most senior judges in the Supreme Court, apart from Judge Neil Handel, who is currently chairing the Central Election Commission.

On Thursday, the attorney general delivered his answer to the high-tech petition. In his response, Mandelblit said he believed that the hearing at issue should address the issue of whether a legal question could be discussed at this time - and only if the judges determined that the hearing could be held on its own merits, an opinion would be formulated.