The striking of the judicial reform law on reasonableness doctrine was an important part of the Israeli constitutional process that needed to be continued with Basic Law: Legislation, Acting Supreme Court president Uzi Vogelman said at the Israeli Association of Public Law conference on Thursday night.
The January 1 ruling that saw a historic full 15 justice court strike down a quasi-constitutional Basic Law amendment for the first time according to Vogelman “constitutes another important part of the Israeli constitutional enterprise.”
“The ability to maintain effective constitutional dialogue between Israel’s three arms of government has been put to a significant test over the last year,” said Vogelman. “The most salient example is the judgment in which the Supreme Court invalidated Amendment No. 3 to Basic Law: The Judiciary – an amendment that completely revoked the authority to carry out judicial review of the reasonableness of decisions made by the government, the Prime Minister, and government ministers.”
Vogelman said that the constitutional process lacked one of its cornerstones, “Basic Law: Legislation, which will anchor the constitutional ‘rules of the game.'”
There were disagreements at the time of the September hearing on reasonableness if the court had the ability to engage in judicial review of basic laws. Basic Law: Legislation would establish the limits and relationships between the different branches of the government, including detailing the ability of the High Court to annul legislation.
Unprecedented challenges made public discourse robust
“This past year has raised unprecedented challenges for the entire State of Israel, including the Judiciary – challenges which revolve around the core of Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic State,” said Vogelman. “Public discourse during this time has been robust, vigorous, and polarized to such an extent that Israel has rarely experienced before.”
Another contentious issue during the judicial reform period was the convening of the Judicial Selection Committee, which reformists sought to reconfigure first before assembling to appoint judges. Vogelman noted that the panel had not assembled for 2 years, and new judges, and even a new Supreme Court president, had not been selected.
“For the first time in the 75-year history of the State of Israel, the Supreme Court is not headed by a permanent President. On October 16th, 2023, Justice Esther Hayut retired from her position as President of the Supreme Court after a six-year tenure,” Vogelman said to the conference. “Considering the importance of the position of President of the Supreme Court, the sensitivity involved, and the interest in allowing the court system to plan and execute long-term policies – the position of President of the Supreme Court must be filled through a permanent appointment.”
Last week 18 judges were appointed by the committee, and a further 14 judges were appointed on Thursday.
“Although there are disagreements between members of the Committee, I hope that we may continue the judicial selection process in order to remedy the extraordinary workload,” said Vogelman, referring to the backlog of cases caused in part by a lack of judges in Israel.
