Implications of Regime Changes for the Constitutional Right to Privacy: Summary of Policy Paper #26

The Israeli Law Professors’ Forum for Democracy, an ad hoc and voluntary group of experts on Israeli law and specifically Israeli public law, expresses its grave concern over the apparent intention to abolish the independence of the judiciary, to subordinate it to the government and to the partisan political considerations of the executive branch, to undermine the independent status of the attorney general and civil service legal counsels, and to violate human rights. In this paper we examine the implications of the proposed regime change for the constitutional right to privacy.

We consider that:

● The proposed limitations on judicial review as a whole will, among other things, cause serious harm to the right to privacy. The increased potential of governmental arbitrariness is likely to infringe upon fundamental freedoms that are vital in a democratic regime.

● The main concern relates to the demise of judicial review over the constitutionality of government conduct and of parliamentary legislation, and over cases in which the government is a party to a judicial proceeding in which questions of privacy may arise, such as in labor relations.

The full position paper in Hebrew can be found on our website.

Public Service in Times of Constitutional Crisis: Summary of Position Paper #25

The Israeli Law Professors’ Forum for Democracy, an ad hoc and voluntary group of experts on Israeli law and specifically Israeli public law, expresses its grave concern over the apparent intention to abolish the independence of the judiciary, to subordinate it to the government and to the partisan political considerations of the executive branch, to undermine the independent status of the attorney general and civil service legal counsels, and to violate human rights. In this paper we examine the considerations and principles relating to public service in times of constitutional crisis.

We hold that:

● At a time of constitutional crisis two different branches of government claim to have the power to determine fundamental arrangements in the state. In such a situation, public servants do not know whose instructions to follow.

● The decision whose instructions to follow relies, in our view, on two types of considerations: One, an evaluation of who is authorized to determine the law; the other, the obligation to provide equal and optimal service to the state’s population.

● The manner in which public servants act in circumstances of constitutional crisis depends, inter alia, on whether their conduct directly affects the democratic rules of the game, on the institution in which they operate, on their rank within the institution and on the avenues of action available to them. As a rule, public servants should follow the instructions of the Attorney-General and of the Supreme Court. However, this rule might change if conditions change, and in particular if the independence of the Attorney-General or of the Supreme Court is undermined.

Subordination of the Civil Administration to the Ministry of Defense: Position Paper #24

The Israeli Law Professors’ Forum for Democracy, an ad hoc and voluntary group of experts on Israeli law and specifically Israeli public law, expresses its grave concern over the apparent intention to abolish the independence of the judiciary, to subordinate it to the government and to the partisan political considerations of the executive branch, to undermine the independent status of the attorney general and civil service legal counsels, and to violate human rights. In this paper we examine the implications of the agreement subordinating the Civil Administration to the Additional Minister in the Ministry of Defense.

Position paper 24 eng 230210

.pdf

הורידו את PDF • 224KB