Absolute knockout for petitioners: 11 judges rejected all claims • "Intervention in this proceeding has a material violation of the principle of majority decision which underlies our system of government"
The High Court unanimously rejected the petitions against the government by Benjamin Netanyahu and the coalition agreement on Wednesday evening: .
Photo: GPO
This ended the drama that accompanied the issue of the next government train and the rotation agreement between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz. As the High Court alluded to during the lengthy hearings earlier this week, the justices rejected the petitions filed against Netanyahu by the government because of his legal situation.
"As far as the first question is concerned, as far as the terms of the law are concerned, an indictment pending against a Knesset does not preclude the appointment of the government, and consequently his appointment to head it," the ruling reads.
The judges ruled that the question of the government being assembled by the president through the recommendations of the Knesset is at the heart of the regime's method: "The decision to ask the state president to impose the government's job on a Knesset member ... and a committee to translate voter law to support one of the Knesset members for the post of prime minister. "Most of the Knesset members support the request. This is at the heart of the democratic process. External intervention in this process has a material violation of the principle of deciding the majority that underlies our system of government."
For the full High Court ruling, click here:
The judges explained that the judicial intervention that can be exercised in these situations is limited and relates to very rare situations, which this case is not one of them and emphasized the presumption of innocence that Netanyahu has.
As for the coalition agreement, the judges rejected all the petitioners' claims, but explained that this is an "exceptional" agreement that raises legal difficulties: "It is also an exceptional agreement compared to past coalition agreements discussed in court, but although it raises" considerable legal difficulties ", at this time There is no reason to intervene in any of its clauses, among other things, given the amendments and clarifications provided by the prime minister and the Blue and White factions and the Likud. "
The justices reiterated in the ruling that the court does not interfere with uncompleted legislative proceedings.
Regarding the failure to provide opposition committees and the appointment of two representatives from the unity government's coalition to the Judiciary Committee, they wrote: "These clauses raise considerable difficulties, but a proposal was submitted to the Regular Committee for the establishment of permanent committees for the approval of the Knesset meeting. The Judiciary Committee has no room to go beyond the rule that no judicial review of the authority's actions will be exercised before they have taken shape. "
More on:
• The President lives in a High Court hearing: "When has the court intervened in a legislative process while it is happening?"
• Stop the constitutional train accident
• The rule of law against the rule of law
Regarding the emergency period limitation, freezing of appointments and limiting legislation, the judges ruled that "these provisions do not invalidate or violate the public regulation requiring their cancellation by the court."
In summary, the court ruled that it was "an exceptional coalition agreement, some of whose provisions cause considerable difficulties. For example, the agreements on the Norwegian law, if decided to implement them, are extremely difficult in view of being a retroactive change of the rules of the game and the right to choose and be elected. The erosion of the opposition in Israel has also eroded. However, it is not yet time to examine these claims. "
In doing so, the judges aligned a line, with Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's position, that the petitions were premature and that the court's intervention in the Knesset and voter will be very limited and that coalition agreements and legislative procedures should not be intervened before they are finalized.
As mentioned, on Sunday and Monday this week, the High Court discussed an expanded panel of 11 judges, headed by Supreme Leader Esther Hayes, in a series of petitions against Netanyahu's government for his legal situation and against the coalition agreement that allows the unity government.
Vice President Justice Hanan Meltzer already linked the current hearing on Netanyahu's situation to Deri-Pinhassi law, a matter on which some of the petitions are based. The law of Deri-Panhasi spoke of the prime minister's authority to transfer the minister from office. "There is no such authority here, and every Knesset member has to consider the relevant considerations. But it is not administrative discretion and there is no such thing here that was in Deri-Panhasi law," he said.
Attorney General of the State Attorney's Office Attorney Anar Hellman, who represented the Attorney General, said that "the USSR believes that there is no impediment that Knesset Member Netanyahu will form the next government. The main consideration that must be taken into account is the realization of the voter’s will. This is the democratic system. You choose representatives and they exercise your will. With regard to retinue, the Court believes that at this stage there is no retinue.
At the opening of the hearing on the petitions against the coalition agreement, the President made it clear that the judges would not interfere in legislative proceedings from the agreement that is already in progress, such as the two-pronged government model and the clause that limits the amount of ministers the government can appoint.
However, the judges strongly criticized the freeze of unrelated Corona legislation, the freezing of senior officials, the skipping Norwegian law and the ability to extend the state of emergency without any real limit.
Attorney General Helman backed the judges, saying that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, most of the issues raised in the petitions need not be heard in court at this time, and the hearing should focus on freezing the appointments and the separation of the Knesset from the government. "The court did not discuss theoretical questions before Which the authority decides, "he stated. However, he made it clear that" on the subject of appointments if necessary, the agreement can not prevail. The appointments are part of a basic administrative law and cannot be overcome in a coalition agreement. "
As we recall, during the hearings, the judges explained to the petitioners for several minutes, time after time, that the court would not interfere in legislative proceedings, but the petitioners continued to argue. Among other things, President Hayes asked Attorney Daphna Holtz-Lechner, who represented 123 petitioners from the high-tech, academy and security fields: "Since when did the court intervene in a legislative process while it is happening?"
Judge Manny Mazuz was even sharper: "Ma'am gives us speeches that are nothing between them and judicial review. These are early allegations."
The Movement for Quality Government, one of the petitioners said in response: "Respect the High Court ruling. At the same time, morally and morally, it cannot be reconciled with the situation of a criminal prime minister. The Movement for Quality Government will hold a huge demonstration in the evening titled "Israel is ashamed" - the Netanyahu-Gantz government is the exact definition of the term "kosher but smelly".