Supreme Court of Packilvania
| Supreme Court of Packilvania | |
|---|---|
| luKhama luMakhnifiya aBakhilfaniya (Packilvania) | |
 Coat of arms of Packilvania | |
| Established | December 31, 1985 |
| Jurisdiction |  Packilvania |
| Location | Bingol, Packilvania |
| Motto | "luKhanon lusilam lubuvna luyubav lukumeen" (Packilvanian) "The law alone stands above all" |
| Appeals to | Sultan of Packilvania |
| Appeals from | High Courts of Packilvania |
| Judge term length | Life until 65 years of age |
| Number of positions |
|
| Language | Packilvania |
| Chief Justice of Packilvania | |
| Currently | Farmahad Wasoon |
The Supreme Court of Packilvania (Packilvanian: luKhama luMakhnifiya aBakhilfaniya) is the highest court in Packilvania, lying at the apex of the judiciary of Packilvania. The Constitution of Packilvania (luKhanongur aBakhilfaniya) established the Supreme Court and set out its powers and composition. The Judiciary of Packilvania Act (luKhanon aluKhanoniyat aBakhilfaniya) was passed by the Parliament of Packilvania in 1985 and signed by Sultan Amhoud I to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to the Supreme Court. The act was amended in 1987 to create the Commission of Judicial Appointments(leKhomishayin aleTabad leQadimishme) which oversaw the appointment of judges and magistrates in the country including members of the Supreme Court and in 1998 to create the Commission of Judicial Discipline (luKhomishayin aluIndibat luQadimishme) which investigates cases against Justices of the Supreme Court.
History
The Supreme Court of Packilvania was established when the Constitution was passed by the Constituent Assembly and signed by Sultan Amhoud I. The first Chief Justice who was appointed was Prince Radoub, the brother of Sultan Amhoud I. He had been a lawyer during the rule of the Packilvanian Communist Party, and had been a lead negotiator between the Communist Party and the Carriers of Mercy to end the Second Packilvanian Civil War. Furthermore, he was one of the lead framers of the Constitution. As such, his appointment as the first Chief Justice was widely supported by the newly established government including his nephew, Crown Prince and Prime Minister Prince Amhoud. Chief Justice Prince Radoub continued to serve in his position until February 1, 2001.
His term was characterised by landmark judgements that helped to develop the case law of Packilvania. In the 1986 case, Association for Restitution and Restoration v. Minister of Home Affairs, the Supreme Court ruled that the agreement between the then-dissolved Carriers of Mercy and the Communist Party to grant immunity to members of the Party for any war crimes or sentient rights violations during thr Second Packilvanian Civil War was constitutional. This made recourse by humans and other minorities for the systemic persecution they endured in the 20th century unenforceable against the former members of the Communist Party directly. Nevertheless, the government established the Restitution and Restoration Tribunal to evaluate the claims of the victims of the Communist Party and to award compensation.
In the 1987 case, Compatriots of Assimilation v the Minister of Home Affairs, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bas Magdamar is not the highest law in the country despite the fact that the Preamble of the Constitution states that Packilvania shall be a Paxist state whose sovereignty originates from Noi through the Sultan and the government. Instead it states that it is the Constitution and the temporal institutions that it establishes that determines the extent to which Paxist values and laws are implemented in Packilvania. This formed the bedrock of another case called Suhayla Armood v Magisterium of Paxism where Suhayla Armood sought a remedy from a Magistrate Court but the case was referred to the Magisterium of Paxism which ruled against her. The Supreme Court ruled that the only courts with binding authority in the country are those that are created by law by the Parliament of Packilvania.
In Kanameed Corporation v Hardeek Alawad and Another, the Supreme Court ruled that the rights and duties granted by the Constitution and laws made in accordance therewith to natural persons apply to juristic persons insofar as it is possible or not reasonably prohibited by law. In Prince Abeed v the Chairperson of the Legislative Council, the Supreme Court ruled that members of the Parliament of Packilvania are immune from criminal prosecution for the lawful exercise of their duties in that capacity. In the case, Basmood Harmeed v Eastern Merchant Bank of Packilvania, it was ruled that voluntary bonded servitude for the repayment of debts was unconstitutional, rendering the DRONE policy null and void.
In Prince Guram vs the Crown of Packilvania, it was ruled that the Sultan of Packilvania had original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving Princes and Princesses of the Bedonite dynasty. Prince Radeeq was one of Sultan Amhoud II's brothers. He appointed to the position by Sultan Namdun III in February 2001. In Sergeant Asmal Orkoud vs the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Court ruled that members of the Packilvanian Armed Forces could appeal cases of military discipline to civilian courts and that to the extent that the matter pertained to constitutional law, the cases could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Faced with the case, Jabal Masumi v the Provincial Minister for Public Safety of Ashura, it was ruled that the Provincial governments of Packilvania could legislate on matters concerning the rights of citizens to the extent that such legislation abided with law and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful for a private business to deny a client service on the basis of their religion or species in the case Panaam Adud v Shaykal Furniture. In Ashmara Duhavid v National Commissioner of the Religious Police, it was determined that the Constitution did indeed by implication and through the laws created pursuant thereto have the power to request and enforce the observance of fasting for all able-bodied adult citizens during the month of Ishahan. The Supreme Court determined that it was indeed constitutional for the government to pass laws moderating the public dress of the people of the country including imposing requirements with respect to headscarves in the case Fujayla Ashmidin v National Commissioner of the Religious Police.
In 2006, the Great Magister of Ashura took the Minister of Home Affairs to court in the case Office of the Great Magister of Ashura v the Minister of Home Affairs, in which the Supreme Court determined that it was not unconstitutional especially with respect to Packilvania's status as a theocratic state under Paxism for the government to extend to women the right to terminate a pregnancy, as it did not recognise that the precepts protecting children extended to an unborn foetus. In the case, Ekhanid Ankhadeel v National Commissioner of the Police Service of Packilvania, it was determined that it was indeed constitutional for the police place a person within the borders of Packilvania under detention for a reasonable and lawful period for the sake of their own protection or the protection of others.
In 2008, journalist Yamal Bedawin published sensitive government documents to the newspaper the Tashkar Sun in Mekedesh. The Supreme Court, in Yamal Bedawin v the Minister of State Security, ruled that it was constitutional for the government to arrest and charge with the crime of violation of national security, the unauthorised publishing of lawfully classified intelligence documents.
In the 2010 case, Benayna Durhad and Others v the Minister of Defence, that the Constitution extended all rights of citizenship to the peoples of nations who were conquered and annexed into Packilvania to the extent, thus extending the rights of Packilvanians to the people of Tasselvalta including in pursuing just recourse for crimes committed against them during the Tasselvaltan War. In Axanad Buraad v the Minister of Defence, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to place a territory under military occupation without either annexing said territory into Packilvania or without ceasing the occupation.
2015 marked the year the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court. During that year, in the case Menkhadim Ashmood v Korodal Data Incorporated that the personal data of a person was his private property and he had constitutional rights pertaining to property. However such data would have to be data against which property rights could be exercised. A year later, in Menkhadim Ashmood v the Minister of State Security, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the state to hold private data to the extent that it was in the national interest (heavily citing the Yamal Bedawin case).
At the end of 2016, in Office of the Great Magister of Fidakar v Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court determined that the right to life did not extend to the lawful imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes violating the life of others. Stemming therefrom in the case entitled Terhad Fawad v the National Commissioner of the Police Service of Packilvania in 2017, the Supreme Court that the ruling of the Office of the Great Magister did not extend to vigilantes, stating that the Constitution empowered only the government through its lawfully established courts to enforce the death penalty. 2018 marked a landmark year in which the Supreme Court ruled that legitimate and lawful criticism by way of written or verbal statement of the government and the Crown was distinct from criticism of the monarch personally, in the case Meker Sunday Times v Imperial Court of Packilvania. Nevertheless, it did uphold the fact that unlawful and indecent criticism of the state could be validly curtailed in the public interest.
In the 2022 case, Prince Kujil v the Crown of Packilvania, it was determined that it was constitutional for the Sultan to waive princely immunity and to refer matters pertaining to Princes to the government courts. During the same year, in the case Prince Kujil v the Imperial Procuratorate of Kemer, it was determined that it was constitutional for the the Imperial Procuratorate to seek recourse against Princes in common Court withthe Sultan's approval and that arbitrary withholding of his approval was unconstitutional. In 2023, in the case Prince Elam and Others v the Crown of Packilvania, it was determined that it was constitutional for the Parliament and Sultan to impose term limits on Governors of the provinces of Packilvania.
Powers and duties
The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. This entails reviewing laws to determine whether parts or their whole contradicts the Constitution. When the Supreme Court determines that a law is unconstitutional, the law is unenforceable. However the Supreme Court can stay the law being declared unconstitutional to give the Parliament and the Sultan time to amend the law to bring it in alignment with the Constitution or to pass a new law in its place that is in alignment with the Constitution.
Normally, the only way for the Supreme Court to determine if a law violates the Constitution is for a case to be brought on appeal on a question of constitutional law.
The Supreme Court is the final court to which appeals can be made. This means that a case that has already been tried in the High Court, the Supreme Court can receive and rule on the appeal. Technically, cases not pertaining to constitutional law that are presented to the Supreme Court can be appealed to the Sultan, but this power has never actually happened. Cases which are tried directly by the Sultan, normally cases against Princes, cannot be appealed to any other body, however the Sultan can refer cases that would otherwide be tried by him to the Supreme Court, in which case the Supreme Court can act as a court of first or second instance.
Appointment
The Commission for Judicial Appointments recommends at least 3 candidates for each vacant position on the Supreme Court to the Sultan who appoints them by decree. The Commission for Judicial Appointments advertises vacancies in the Supreme Court and sets out criteria for application. It receives the applications of prospective candidates and appraises their resumes and qualifications. It invites suitable candidates for several rounds of interviews.
Qualifications
A candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court is required to be a citizen of Packilvania either by birth or naturalisation. Before 2010, there were no constitutional or legislative requirements or qualifications for being a member of the Supreme Court and it was directed to prefer Princes of the Bedonite dynasty over other candidates. The Judiciary Act was amended in 2010 to grant the Commission of Judicial Appointments the power to regulate the nomination and criteria of candidates of the Supreme Court. The Regulations on the Qualifications of Justices of the Supreme Court, 2023 are the framing document and they prescribe the following minimum qualifications:
- The candidate must have a valid law degree issued by an accredited school of law in Packilvania, Drakkengard, or Allegheny
- The candidate must have served at least:
- 12 years as an Advocate of the Supreme Court or,
- 1 year as a Judge of the High Court
- 18 years as an Advocate of the High Court
- 18 years as a Professor of Law at an accredited school of law in Packilvania, Drakkengard, or Allegheny
- 1 year as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court
Restrictions based on gender were removed through the passage of the Judiciary Amendment Act, 2023 to allow women to serve on the Supreme Court, bringing the Supreme Court in alignment with the criteria for other courts in the country.
Impeachment and removal
The Commission for Judicial Discipline is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct, gross incompetence or incapacity, and presenting a report to the Chairperson of the Legislative Council of Packilvania. The Chairperson is required to call a vote. A quorate sitting of the Legislative Council assesses the report and with a two-thirds majority can impeach a Justice of the Supreme Court. If the Legislative Council impeaches a justice, the Sultan of Packilvania is required to remove them from office.
Normally, the Commission only pursues charges against when a high threshold for both evidence and weight of the matter in question can be adequately presented by the complainants. In practice, this entails pursuing allegations concerned primarily with a failure by the judge to adhere to the Regulations on Judicial Ethics and Conduct which the Commission issues in terms of the Judiciary Act or by a grievous offence breaking the law of Packilvania.
After the defeat of the Packilvanian Communist Party in 1985, there has not been a single Justice of the Supreme Court to be removed from office. Only 2 justices, Ramed Soldook and Khenad Imhan have had impeachment formally proposed to the Legislative Council. Justice Ramed Soldook had charges brought against him in 1998 for allegedly perjuring himself during a trial in which he was a witness over 10 years prior. The Legislative Council voted 240 to 21 against the impeachment. Justice Khenad Imhan allegedly committed adultery against his wife in 1981 and had charges presented against him in 2001. The Legislative Council voted against the impeachment unanimously.
Tenure
The tenure of Justices of the Supreme Court of Packilvania ends when the following conditions are met: death, resignation, permanent incapacitation, and mandatory retirement at the age of 65. The Commission for Judicial Appointments issues a Proclamation of Permanent Incapacitation when a Justice has gone missing for over 1 year or suffers an illness or injury which makes it impossible for him to exercise his duties as a member of the judiciary.
In theory, the Sultan can refuse to accept the resignation of a Justice of the Supreme Court, however this has never happened. The mandatory retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court arose as part of amendments made in 2023 to the Judiciary Act as part of a set of reforms being implemented by Sultan Thumim V, but it does not apply to Justices who have already been appointed to their posts who have security of tenure until the criteria of their removal are met under the conditions of their employment as it stood as at their appointment.
Justices
| Name | Appointed by | Position | Tenure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Farmahad Wasoon | Thumim V | Chief Justice | January 3, 2024 |
| Duke Madvin Gurion of Adrien | Namdun III | Justice | June 30, 2003 |
| Duke Kaswal Mawad of Halaler | Namdun III | Justice | October 18, 2002 |
| Duke Ahumad Sahel of Mochtar | Namdun III | Justice | August 7, 1999 |
| Prince Ishak a-Harim Bedon | Namdun III | Justice | September 12, 1996 |
| Prince Zygros a-Idesh Bedon | Namdun III | Justice | May 22, 2015 |
| Marquis Sawad Wasail of Namdunshtar | Namdun III | Justice | November 19, 2007 |
| Marquis Habib Sawul of Ubran | Namdun III | Justice | June 28, 2009 |
| Prince Yashuv a-Juber Bedon | Namdun III | Justice | April 11, 2004 |
| Prince Ashaka a-Juber Bedon | Namdun III | Justice | October 31, 2012 |
| Duke Ashter Samoud of Zukaril | Amhoud II | Justice | February 1, 1988 |
| Duke Ilon Ustriel of Everyet | Namdun III | Justice | August 29, 1994 |
| Duke Dushad Xavaar of Lehasa | Namdun III | Justice | August 7, 1999 |
| Duke Loyaad Naweer of Akas Akil | Namdun III | Justice | December 31, 2017 |
| Duke Elam Chamba of Medayin | Namdun III | Justice | June 30, 2003 |
| Duke Folud Samayaan of Xahal | Namdun III | Justice | June 19, 2018 |
| Duke Bilal Iered of Kadaigard | Namdun III | Justice | June 30, 2015 |
| Duke Alawadun Mudawaheen of Ohindawo | Namdun III | Justice | August 30, 1997 |
| Duke Shojo Ujhan of Kaliwad | Amhoud II | Justice | March 10, 1987 |