The Movement for the Quality of Government demands the cancellation of the agreement between Blue and White and the Likud. • President Hayut: "After 3 elections without a decision, they will create change - what is wrong here?"
This morning (Tuesday), a hearing began in the High Court on petitions against the amendment of the law that allows for the appointment of an alternate prime minister. The hearing is broadcast live.
Photo: GPO
The discussion includes a number of petitions, the main claim being that the clause in the coalition agreement between Blue and White and the Likud regarding the appointment of an alternate prime minister is unconstitutional.
According to the Movement for Quality of Government, these are in fact two different governments, each headed by a different prime minister, and this situation paralyzes the executive branch in Israel, and harms the parliamentary democracy that is practiced in Israel.
According to the movement, the exchange government is an unconstitutional amendment that was made using the authority of the Knesset and in an improper procedure - which necessitates its abolition.
About a week and a half ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu submitted his response to the petition to the High Court. In response, Netanyahu claims that the High Court has no authority to discuss basic laws enacted by the Knesset.
This position was supported by the ombudsman, who stated that "there is no need to decide at the moment regarding the High Court's review of the content of basic laws."
And that "there is no legal basis for the petitioners' claim that the amendment to the Basic Laws is contrary to the 'Deri-Pinhasi rule', because the Knesset is authorized to set new norms, including the determination of new regime institutions."
At the beginning of the hearing, the issue of the High Court's jurisdiction over the issue arose. The Supreme Court President, Judge Esther Hayut, told the movement's representative for the quality of government, Adv. "Z interferes with a Basic Law, especially when there is no complete constitution, and there is a big question as to whether there is judicial review of a Basic Law."
Advocate Shraga argued in response: “There are enough tools to address this, when there is a violation of democratic foundations it is necessary to intervene.
The defendants created a blocking bloc from a coalition of defendants, whose three heads are accused of crimes (Netanyahu, Deri and Litzman).
" Is the new structure different from a change in the method of the regime that was the direct choice?
What is wrong with the constitution here? "
The motives you present (Adv. Shraga) are political. After three undecided election campaigns, they decided to produce a change that takes place alongside the existing arrangement. "Forming a government. What is wrong with this from a police point of view?"
