Who has confidence in the High Court? Reject the Ineligibility Law - Will Not Apply in the Current Knesset

January 3, 2024   

The High Court of Justice ruled today (Wednesday) by a majority of 6 out of 11 justices that the Disqualification Law should be ordered to be postponed - so that it will enter into force at the beginning of the 26th Knesset term. Most of the justices ruled that this is a "clearly personal" law and added that the enactment of the amendment was intended to serve the advancement of the Prime Minister's personal interests and remove the shackles of the legal restrictions that applied to him, taking into account the criminal proceedings being conducted against him. Acting President Uzi Fogelman wrote that the amendment was made in order to serve a clear and distinct personal purpose - to free the Prime Minister from restrictions imposed on him in the conflict of interest arrangement and to prevent a court hearing on the question of his disqualification. "The highest power of the Knesset in its role as a constituent authority - to establish the arrangements of the Israeli Constitution, was mobilized for the purpose of advancing the Prime Minister's personal interests." President (retired) Esther Hayut said: The immediate application of the amendment, the manner in which it was enacted, and the manner in which it was enacted, are the same as the constitutional provisions of the Knesset. in which it was presented by its initiators and supporters, the timing of the amendment proposal, the pace of its completion, and its normative consequences - all show that the personal interest of the incumbent Prime Minister was not only the motive for the amendment's enactment, but also the dominant justification for its enactment at the time it was enacted. Justices Solberg, Mintz, and Elron, who were in the minority, reserved the very use of the doctrine of abuse of constituent authority, and, in substance, held that Amendment No. 12 was not a personal amendment. Justices Solberg and Mintz ruled that even if there were a case for applying the doctrine of abuse of constituent authority, its necessary result would be to transform the Basic Law into an ordinary law, and not to postpone its application. Justice Stein held that the content, purpose, and result of Amendment No. 12 were not personal. Justice Wilner held that the requirement of generality concerned the application of the doctrine of abuse of constituent authority. The norm, and not in personal considerations that were before the eyes of the Knesset members at the time of its establishment; and accordingly, it believed that since the amendment's general application, it meets the aforementioned requirement. Justice Minister Yariv Levin responded to the High Court of Justice ruling: "The decision of the Supreme Court justices to publish judgments that are severely disputed even among themselves, while our fighters are sacrificing their lives on the front, is an act that harms the unity of the people that is required during this period." He added: "A democratically elected prime minister is replaced by a ballot box, not by a judgment. The hasty and careless repeal of the Knesset legislation is further proof of the urgent need for a real balance between the authorities. It is impossible to prevent the people from realizing their desire for a reformed democracy and to overturn the decisions of their elected officials time and time again." Yair Netanyahu, the prime minister's son, shared a "survey" on his Telegram page that asked: "Which legal body surprises you more when it issues another automatic decision against the democracy of the Jewish people." The answers to the poll were: the International Court of Justice in The Hague or the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.