Content deleted Content added
→Papua New Guinea: Specific law |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
||
Line 13:
The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its "basic structure".
The basic structure doctrine was rejected by the [[High Court of Singapore]]<ref>''Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs'' [1989] 1 SLR(R) 461</ref> and the [[Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea]].<ref name="Donigi2010">{{cite news |url=https://www.thenational.com.pg/olippac-and-the-supreme-court-ruling/ |title=OLIPPAC and the Supreme Court ruling |author=Peter Donigi |work=The National |date=8 July 2010 |access-date=29 June 2025}}</ref> It was initially also rejected by the [[Federal Court of Malaysia]], but was later accepted by it. Conversely, the doctrine was initially approved in [[Belize]] by the [[Supreme Court of Belize|Supreme Court]] but was later reversed on appeal by the Belize Court of Appeal.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=15 May 2014 |title=Civil Appeal No. 18 19 21 of 2012 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v THE BRITISH CARIBBEAN BANK LIMITED v DEAN BOYCE and FORTIS ENERGY INTERNATIONAL (BELIZE) INC v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |url=https://www.belizejudiciary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Civil-Appeal-No.-18-19-21-of-2012-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-v-THE-BRITISH-CARIBBEAN-BANK-LIMITED-v-DEAN-BOYCE-and-FORTIS-ENERGY-INTERNATIONAL-BELIZE-INC-v-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf |access-date=20 December 2023 |website=Judiciary of Belize |at=Section [3](iii) |archive-date=29 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129010724/https://www.belizejudiciary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Civil-Appeal-No.-18-19-21-of-2012-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-v-THE-BRITISH-CARIBBEAN-BANK-LIMITED-v-DEAN-BOYCE-and-FORTIS-ENERGY-INTERNATIONAL-BELIZE-INC-v-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
==Definition==
| |||