Basic structure doctrine: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:56, 6 May 2025

Revision as of 08:53, 29 June 2025

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)}}</ref>

==Definition==

Line 175:

The basic structure doctrine was first cited with approval by the Federal Court in ''obiter dicta'' in ''Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia'',<ref>[2010] 2 M.L.J. 333.</ref> before ultimately being applied by the same court in ''Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ano'r Case''<ref>[2017] 3 M.L.J. 561.</ref> and ''Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & 2 O'rs & 2 Other Cases''.<ref>Federal Court, 29 January 2018.</ref> In those cases, the Federal Court held that the vesting of the judicial power of the Federation in the civil courts formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and could not be removed even by constitutional amendment.

===Papua New Guinea===

The [[Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea]] found that the basic structure doctrine was not applicable in Papua New Guinea as part of a 2010 judgment on an [[organic law]], referring to it as a "foreign doctrine".<ref name="Donigi2010"/><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://actnowpng.org/sites/default/files/SC%20REF%201%20OF%202008%20OLIPAC%20_EDITED%20No%202_%20final%20copy.pdf |title=Special Reference Pursuant to Constitution, Section 19: In the Matter of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates, Reference by the Provincial Executive Council of the Fly River Provincial Government of Western Province |publisher=Papua New Guinea Supreme Court of Justice |date=7 July 2010 |pages=40–41 |quote=Under the structure of government and distribution of powers between the three arms of government, the legislative power is vested in the parliament and it has unlimited law-making powers. However, the exercise of its legislative power is always subject to the ''Constitution''. The exercise of the legislative power to amend or alter the ''Constitution'' is not made subject to any foreign doctrine such as the "basic structure" doctrine. The ''Constitution'' is intended to be construed in accordance with the principles and the use of certain materials as aids to interpretation provided in the ''Constitution''.}}</ref>

===Pakistan===