scholarly journals WHAT SHOULD BE THE FORM OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LAWMAKING PROCESS? AN ANALYSIS OF SOUTH AFRICAN CASES

Obiter ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko

South Africa’s new constitutional democracy places a duty on various legislators to facilitate public participation in the law-making process as mandated by the principles of participatory democracy provided for in the Constitution of South Africa, 1996. This has resulted in a series of court cases wherein the electorate, inter alia, challenged the legislation on the basis that the results did not reflect the views of the people. The courts’ earlier jurisprudence seemed to be placing more emphasis on participatory democracy as opposed to representative democracy. However, recent court decisions indicate a shift towards representative democracy. The central question presented in this paper is whether the consideration of the views of the public by the provincial and national legislatures is merely a matter of procedure, or that those views are indeed considered in the law-making process. In an attempt to answer this question, the paper will evaluate and critique some of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal decisions on public involvement in either the legislative or law-making process. The argument presented in this discourse is that, if the public’s wishes are considered by the legislature, then the outcome would be influenced by the people’s demands. An otherwise negative outcome shows that public participation in the law-making process is a procedural matter and has no substantive value.

Obiter ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 19961 mandates legislatures at various levels of government to ensure public participation in the law-making process. The Constitution, however, does not map out the parameters of public participation as far as the law-making process is concerned. Thus, a number of questions remain largely unanswered. For instance, does public participation merely constitute consulting with the people? Does it, perhaps, go as far as to require the legislature to consider the views of the people? Supposing the views of the people are considered, does public participation suggest that the end results of the consultation process should reflect the views of the people? As the answers to the foregoing questions are far from conclusive, the aim of this paper is to critically examine the nature of the relationship between participatory and representative democracy in the law-making process in order to ascertain how the courts have resolved conflicts that involve the previously mentioned forms of democracy. This will be done through examining various court cases in which their own elected representatives disregarded the views of the electorate. The argument presented in this paper is that participatory and representative democracies are in conflict with each other. The paper further advocates for the adoption of model legislation on public participation in the law-making process.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jentel Chairnosia

The enactment of Law Number 32 Year 2004 is a manifestation of the development ofadvanced democracy, namely all local chief elected directly by the people except the positionof the Governor of Yogyakarta. However, in its development, the implementation of theGeneral Elections of Regional Head gave rise to dissatisfaction which resulted in the appealof the results of the General Election to the court for various reasons. The presence of theConstitutional Court as an institution that resolved the dispute over the General Election ofRegional Heads has not been able to provide justice to the public, especially the emergenceof many Constitutional Court rulings that cause debate. In its development, the ConstitutionalCourt abolished its authority in the settlement of disputes in the General Election of RegionalHeads as stipulated in Decision Number 97 / PUU-XI / 2013. The Constitutional Court is ofthe opinion that the Constitutional Court only has the authority to resolve election disputes ofDPR, DPD, President/Vice President because the election is done nationally, while theelection is conducted in certain areas only. In addition, the volume of incoming cases relatedto election disputes more than the law review case which is the main authority of theConstitutional Court, so that this can affect the quality of the decisions of the ConstitutionalCourt considering the dispute resolution of the results of the General Election should beterminated within fourteen days. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v5i2.7090


Author(s):  
Dominikus Dalu Sogen ◽  
Dewa Ayu Putri Asvini ◽  
Detty Kristiana Widayat

Studying the philosophy of law means studying various schools of law. Amongst the variety of legal theories, there are adherents of legal positivism or the positive legal theory postulated by John Austin (a philosopher whose thoughts on law are outlined in a work entitled The Province of Jurisprudence Determined 1832). Are Austin's thoughts still relevant for the practice of law inthe modern era, considering that law is made for the public interest? Is it appropriate for the law to be made by authorities (superior) to bind subordinates (inferior), whereas the people are only in a position to obey the law? In a functioning democracy public participation is important in decision-making by the elected legislators. Presumably, law is not made arbitrarily or unilaterally, but it is supposed to take into account the interest of the public or the interest of the groups it is designed to address. A prominent example currently in the public spotlight isthe dismissal of 57 Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) employees due to their stated ineligibility following their failure to pass the National Insight Test Assessment. For this matter, a judicial review (JR) has been requested from the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court who in the meantime have published their decisions. In addition, there have been recommendations from the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and the Indonesian Ombudsman regarding the occurrence of human rights violations and maladministration in the transfer of KPK employees to ASN. Where JR's decision by the two judicial institutions is different from what is recommended by Human Right Commission and the Indonesian Ombudsman. Here it can be seen that there are differences in the application of the law with the positive law that applies and is detrimental to the rights of KPK employees.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutia Silvia Rose

Partisipasi masyarakat adalah perwujudan dari masyarakat di dalam negara demokrasi, dimana pemerintahan yang di dasarkan kepada rakyat merupakan tujuan utama kehidupan berpolitik, baik dalam kebijakan maupun dalam tujuan pemerintahan. Perda Label Batik Pekalongan merupakan peraturan daerah yang mengatur tentang suatu tanda yang menunjukkan identitas dan ciri batik buatan Pekalongan yang terdiri dari tiga jenis yaitu batik tulis, batik cap atau batik kombinasi tulis dan cap. Tujuan dibentuknya Perda tersebut adalah agar masyarakat dan konsumen Batik Pekalongan tidak dirugikan akibat dari salah dalam membedakan jenis batik. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa partisipasi masyarakat dalam pembentukan Perda tentang penggunaan label batik Pekalongan masih bersifat elitis, karena yang mendominasi mengikuti public hearing hanya pengusaha kelas atas yaitu seseorang atau kelompok orang yang memproduksi seni batik dalam bentuk tulis, cap dan kombinasi dalam jumlah besar, sudah mempunyai nama merek yang terkenal, dan pemasarannya sudah sangat luas baik di dalam negeri maupun di luar negeri. Partisipasi masyarakat dalam pembentukan perda tentang label batik pekalongan yang masih bersifat elitis dapat berpengaruh karakteristik produk hukum yang di hasilkan yaitu lebih menguntungkan pengusaha batik kelas atas, karena dalam pembuatan label batik Pekalongan merugikan dalam segi ekonomis bagi  pengusaha kelas menengah dan bawah.<br /><br />Community participation is the embodiment of the people in a democracy, where the government is based on the people as the ultimate goal of political life, both in policy and administration purposes. Label the Perda Batik Pekalongan local regulation of Batik Pekalongan Label is a sign which indicates the identity and characteristics of batik from Pekalongan which consists of three types of batik, batik or batik and stamp combination. Purpose of the establishment of the regulation is that the public and consumers are not harmed Batik Pekalongan result of incorrect in distinguishing the types of batik. The result of this research indicates that participation in the formation of legislation on the use of Pekalongan batik label still elitist, because that dominate following the public hearing only top-class entrepreneurs is a person or group of people who produce batik art in written form, stamp and combinations in bulk, already has a well-known brand names, and marketing has been very widely both domestically and abroad. Public participation in the formation of regulations about labeling Pekalongan batik is still elitist may influence the characteristics of a legal product that produced batik entrepreneurs are more favorable upper classes, as in the manufacture of Pekalongan batik label in terms of economic harm to employers middle and lower classes.<br /><br />


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Oleg A. Kozhevnikov ◽  

The article analyzes certain provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of March 14, 2020 No. 1-FKZ “On improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public power” in terms of regulatory regulation of local self-government. According to the analysis the author comes to the conclusion that with the entry into effect of the mentioned legal act the content of individual elements of the constitutional-legal bases of local self-government will change, but the nature and scope of modifications in many respects will depend on the provisions of the rules of sectoral legislation aimed at implementing the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In this regard, the Federal legislator has a huge responsibility to create an “updated” legal framework for the implementation of the constitutional foundations of local self-government, taking into account the already established law enforcement practice, the positions of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation, as well as the state's international obligations under the European Charter on local self-government.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-244
Author(s):  
Olena Gilchenco ◽  
Yulia Konstantinova ◽  
Natalia Pashina

Abstract In the context of the Ukrainian crisis, the Law ‘On the specifics of state policy to ensure the state sovereignty of Ukraine in the temporarily occupied territories in Donetsk and Lugansk regions’, which is also called the ‘Law on De-occupation (or Reintegration) of Donbas’, became the key point. After four years of occupation of parts of southeastern Ukraine, the adoption of such a law was necessary, since this particular law formed and legally established the legal and organizational conditions for the resumption of territorial integrity of Ukraine. The importance of this law and the consequences of its adoption caused public involvement on behalf of civic organizations, political analysts, representatives of the academic and economic elite in the process of its discussion. However, due to the small amount of time from the stage of the legislative initiative to the publication of the law, it was not officially discussed by the public. Despite this, the enactment of the law led to an active public debate. Our study is aimed to investigate the degree of public involvement in the political decision-making process and the extent of public influence on lawmaking in Ukraine on the example of this legislative act.


2020 ◽  
pp. 196-220
Author(s):  
Paul Weirich

Governments regulate risks on behalf of the people they serve. Given that regulatory agencies aim for regulatory measures that the public would endorse if rational and informed, the mean-risk method of evaluating acts provides valuable guidance. It offers a way of constructing for a citizen informed probability and utility assignments for a regulation’s possible outcomes, and using these assignments to obtain for the citizen an informed utility assignment for the regulation. The theory of cooperative games combines the utility assignments of multiple agents to support a collective act, and under simplifying assumptions, supports an act that maximizes collective utility, defined as a sum of the act’s utilities for the agents, in the tradition of utilitarianism. This approach to regulation accommodates acts targeting information-sensitive, evidential risks as well as acts targeting physical risks. Verification of a reduction in an evidential risk can meet the standards of objectivity that the law adopts.


1990 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-128
Author(s):  
Joaquin Martin Canivell

Abstract The promulgation of the new Italian Law for the protection of competition and the market urges a comparison with the corresponding Spanish legislation, taking also account of its evolution.In 1963 a first competition law was introduced in Spain as a consequence of a request by the United States, whose intention was to increase its business activities in Spain. Another justification of the interest of Spain for introducing this law was the idea that it could be a step forward the European Common Market.This law was not very effective and, furthermore, its life has not been very easy, though it included the main legal definitions of the EEC Treaty, in particular provisions for cartels and for abuse of a dominant position. In addition, the Spanish law introduced a definition for «dominant position».In order to implement the law, two organisms have been created: the «Service for the Defence of Competition” and the Tribunal having the same name.Both the law and the administrative system organized on its basis became almost useless, because for the first two decades very few decisions had been taken and the only proposal by the Tribunal to the Government for inflicting a sanction was not approved. By consequence, the Tribunal made no other attempts to propose measures to the Government.The revival came after the introduction in Spain of the Constitution, which was promulgated in 1978 and which established, in art. 38, a free-enterprise system in the framework of a market economy to be protected by the public authorities.A judgement by July 1st, 1986, of the Constitutional Court, confirmed that competition is a component of the market economy which protects rather than restrict the freedom of enterprise.By the end of 1985 the Service for the Defence of Competition started a new life. The same happened with the activities of the Tribunal. The number of examinations increased and after 1988 the Tribunal tried again to inflict sanctions, and it was successful.A new law for the protection of the competition was approved by the Parliament on July 17th, 1989 and is in force in Spain since that time. It is founded on the EEC Treaty and it also benefits from the experience with the previous law.Cartels and abuse of dominant position are the main objects of the law which introduced, in addition, the case of «unfair competition».The Tribunal can injunct to the undertakings to suspend their action and to eliminate its consequences. Another innovation of the law was the attribution to the Tribunal of the power to inflict fees up to 150 million pesetas (about 1,7 billion Italian lire), to be increased until the 10 per cent of the turnover.As it was with the first law, two organs are committed to the safeguard of competition: the Service for the Defence of Competition and the Tribunal. The Service has the assignment to start preliminary investigations, to supervise the enforcement of the judgements of the Tribunal, to keep the register with the annotations of authorizations, prohibitions and concentrations and to make studies on the economic system.The Tribunal is an organ of the Ministry for Economy and Finances, but is functionally independent. Its eight members (economists and lawyers) and the president are appointed by the Government for six years and can be confirmed. The president is Secretary of State and the members have the rank of general directors. Decisions are taken by the Tribunal with a majority of six votes (including that of the president or of the vicepresident).Apart from its judiciary powers, the Tribunal can express opinions and give advices upon request by the Parliament, by the Government or by Ministers, as well as by local governments, by unions and by organizations of producers and consumers.The Tribunal has also the power to authorize agreements and other actions prohibited by the competition legislation, on the basis of these reasons: 1) productive improvements or better wholesalers’ organization, technical or technological progress; 2) partecipation by the consumers to the resulting benefits.No limitations to competition can be introduced in order to obtain such results. Competition cannot be eliminated from the market or from a relevant part of it.Such authorizations are not retroactive and can be renewed or revoked.On the subject of economic concentrations, the Tribunal can take action only on request by the Minister for Economy and Finances. The notification by undertakings is voluntary. The advice provided by the Tribunal to the Minister is not binding, since the power to decide on concentrations is entirely under the responsibility of the government.The rules of procedure adopted by the Tribunal and the Service are flexible and effective in order to guarantee the rights of the citizens. The judgements of the Tribunal can be taken to the Civil Courts. Also damage compensation is decided by the Civil Courts.At the moment, there are not yet cases on the basis of the new law and those pending follow the rules of the old law.Some authorizations, instead, have been decided already by the Tribunal whose advice has been requested twice on cases of concentration.New regulations for authorizations by category will be issued in the next future. Other rules for cases of individual authorization will also be provided.The number of cases submitted to the Tribunal increases and the number (as well as the amount) of fees goes up as the public opinion realizes how beneficial can be competition for the general welfare.


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-71
Author(s):  
Joan Small ◽  
Evadne Grant

Equality occupies the first place in most written constitutions, but in South Africa, its importance is magnified both in terms of the text of the Constitution and in terms of the context in which that Constitution operates. The Bill of Rights is expected, in South Africa, to help bring about the transformation of the society. These expectations of transformation through the operation of the Bill of Rights are informing the development of the law in relation to equality and non-discrimination by the Constitutional Court. The concept of discrimination is uniquely defined in the South African Bill of Rights. The Courts are struggling to give legal effect to the terminology. The test developed by the Court to interpret the equality clause, it is submitted, is comprehensive and informed. But the application of the test is sometimes problematic. This paper addresses the evolving concepts of equality and discrimination in South Africa and discusses some of the difficulties with certain aspects of the test for discrimination, including the concepts of unfairness and human dignity, which have caused division among the judiciary.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document