|
''Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs'' is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989. The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds. These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision ''Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs'' which had been overruled in 1988 by ''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'', and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA. In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review. Another significant feature of these cases was the "basic features doctrine". An doctrine developed by the Indian Supreme Court and now a part of Indian constitutional law, the High Court held that the doctrine, which curtails Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution, did not apply in Singapore as this would amount to usurpation of Parliament's legislative function contrary to Article 58 of the Constitution. A contrary opinion is that the basic features doctrine is necessary to provide a legal safeguard for the basic structure of the Constitution. ==Facts== On 21 May 1987, Teo Soh Lung, a lawyer, was detained under the Internal Security Act ("ISA")〔.〕 of Singapore together with other persons for purported involvement in a conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force and replace it with a Marxist state. The detention order was suspended on 26 September 1987 subject to the execution of a bond and compliance with certain conditions. However, the suspension direction was later revoked by the Minister for Home Affairs on 19 April 1988 and Teo was rearrested and detained.〔''Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs'' () 1 S.L.R.(R.) (Law Reports (Reissue)'' ) 461 at 465, para. 2, High Court.〕 Teo's application for a writ of ''habeas corpus'' succeeded before the Court of Appeal in ''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'' ("''Chng Suan Tze''")〔() 2 S.L.R.(R.) 525, Court of Appeal, which reversed ''Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs'' () 2 S.L.R.(R.) 30, High Court.〕 as there was insufficient evidence of the President's satisfaction that her detention without trial was necessary to prevent her from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore or the maintenance of public order, pursuant to section 8(1) of the ISA. Although Teo was released on 8 December 1988, she was re-arrested almost immediately under a new detention order.〔''Teo Soh Lung'' (H.C.), p. 465, paras. 3–4.〕 The Government responded to ''Chng Suan Tze'' within two weeks after the decision was made.〔.〕 It amended the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore〔Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1992 Reprint), now the .〕 and the ISA by enacting the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1989〔No. 1 of 1989, passed 25 January 1989.〕 and the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989,〔No. 2 of 1989, passed 25 January 1989.〕 which respectively came into force on 27 and 30 January 1989.〔''Teo Soh Lung'' (H.C.), pp. 465–466, para. 5.〕 The amendments were expressed to operate retrospectively. The constitutional amendment inserted into Article 149 the italicized portions shown below: Article 149 is primarily directed against subversion and confers power on Parliament to make laws contrary to certain fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The enactment of the ISA, which provides for detention without trial for up to two years, was a conspicuous exercise of this power. The 1989 amendments to the ISA inserted the following provisions into the Act: The legislative amendments were intended to revert the law to its position before ''Chng Suan Tze'' was decided, thus rendering the exercise of power by the President and the Minister under the ISA not justiciable by the courts. In addition, the addition of a reference to Articles 11 and 12 of the Constitution to Article 149(1) ensured that the ISA is valid even if it is inconsistent with five out of the eight fundamental liberties enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution. Parliament was able to pass these legislative amendments without difficulty to diminish the effect of ''Chng Suan Tze'' because a large majority of the Members of Parliament belong to one political party, the People's Action Party. Further, Singapore has a unicameral legislature, so all legislative power is concentrated in one body. The legislative body is "practically fused with the executive via the Cabinet".〔.〕 In ''Teo Soh Lung'', Teo applied again for ''habeas corpus'' to be released from detention. She sought to argue that the amendments did not deprive her of the right to judicial review of the legality, rationality and constitutionality of her detention and, in the alternative, if they did, the amendments were unconstitutional. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|