Berita Hairan melaporkan...
PUTRAJAYA: Mahkamah Persekutuan di sini, hari ini memutuskan, Menteri Besar, Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir dan enam Exco yang digantung Speaker Perak, boleh menghadiri sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN)
Utusan Merayu pula kata...
PUTRAJAYA 16 April - Mahkamah Persekutuan di sini hari ini memutuskan penggantungan Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir dan enam Exco Kerajaan Negeri yang dibuat oleh Speaker, V. Sivakumar adalah batal dan tidak sah kerana seorang speaker tidak ada kuasa berbuat demikian. [fullstop].
BERSORAK besar MB Haram Perak.
Hooray! Hooray! Yabedabedu!
NAMUN, Keputusan tersebut TIDAK MENGHALANG YB Speaker untuk MENGGANTUNG mereka semula. (Haha hehehe).
Macam I.S.A yang direka dan dicipta oleh mereka (baca : BN) juga. Habis 2 tahun. Sambung lagi 2 tahun di Kamunting. TIADA PERUNTUKAN undang-undang yang menghalang daripada Menteri Dalam Negeri untuk menyambung hukuman "pesalah" I.S.A tersebut KECUALI diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Menteri itu selepas itu tidak boleh menyambung semula hukuman tersebut. Tapi, setakat hari ini, tiada lagi PERINTAH oleh Mahkamah dipohon untuk menghalang Menteri daripada menjalankan tugasnya.
Sama keadaannya dengan PENGGANTUNGAN ke atas MB Haram tu. Mahkamah cuma membatalkan keputusan Speaker menggantung MB itu sebelum ini kerana "dikatakan" tidak mengikut PROSEDUR, bukannya memerintahkan Speaker selepas ini tidak boleh menggantung mereka lagi. Maka, di dalam sidang DUN nanti, jika ada USUL agar MB Haram digantung, maka DIGANTUNG semulalah ia.
TAPI, HAKIKATNYA.....
Memandangkan MAHKAMAH pada hari ini telahpun “MENGAMBIL TUGAS” badan legislatif, maka elok dibincangkan juga di sini perkara ini. Iaitu, percampuran KUASA MAHKAMAH di dalam hal ehwal RUMAHTANGGA badan Legislatif.
UNDANG-UNDANG telah termaktub bahawa:-
Melalui Seksyen 84 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman-
“84. Reference of constitutional question by High Court.
(1) Where in any proceedings in the High Court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of Constitution the Judge hearing the proceedings may stay the same on such terms as may be just to await the decision of the question by the Federal Court.
(2) An order staying proceedings under this section may be made by the Judge of his own motion or on the application of any party and shall be made at such stage of the proceedings as the Judge may see fit having regard to the decision of such questions of fact as may be necessary to be settled to assist the Federal Court in deciding the question which has arisen and to the speedy and economical final determination of the proceedings.
(3) Where an order for stay of proceedings has been made under this section the Judge shall state the question which in his opinion has arisen as to the effect of the Constitution in the form of a special case which so far as may be possible shall state the said question in a form which shall permit of an answer being given in the affirmative or the negative.
(4) Where a Judge shall have stated a special case under this section the same shall be transmitted to the Federal Court in accordance with the rules of court of the Federal Court.”
Manakala didalam PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN pula telah termaktub melalui Perkara 121 (2) bahawa:-
“There shall be a court which shall be known as the Mahkamah Persekutuan (Federal Court) and shall have its principal registry at such place as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine, and the Federal Court shall have the following jurisdiction, that is to say:-”
(b) such original or consultative jurisdiction as is specified in Articles 128 and 130; and
(c) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by or under federal law.”
Yang mana Perkara 121 (2) tersebut MESTILAH dibaca bersama dengan Perkara 160 Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi maksud penerangan berkenaan dengan tafsiran "Undang-undang Persekutuan" iaitu:-
“In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:-
(a) any existing law relating to a matter with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws, being a law continued in operation under Part XIII, and
(b) any Act of Parliament;”.
Menerusi Perkara 162 Perlembagaan Persekutuan pula, "Existing Law" ditakrifkan sebagai Undang-undang sebelum merdeka, ini termasuklah Undang-undang Negeri.
“(2) Where any State law amends or repeals an existing law made by the Legislature of a State, nothing in Article 75 shall invalidate the amendment or repeal by reason only that the existing law, relating to a matter with regard to which Parliament as well as the Legislature of a State has power to make laws, is federal law as defined by Article 160.
(3) References in any existing law to the Federation established by the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and its territories, and to any officer holding office under that Federation or to any authority or body constituted in or for that Federation (including any references falling to be construed as such references by virtue of Clause 135 of the said Agreement) shall be construed, in relation to any time on and after Merdeka Day, as references to the Federation (that is to say, the Agreement, 1957) and its territories and to the corresponding officer, authority or body respectively; and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by order declare what office, authority or body is to be taken for the purposes of this Clause to correspond to any officer, authority or body referred to in any existing law.”
Maka sini, jika lihat PERUNTUKAN yang dinyatakan di atas ini, ADALAH JELAS bahawa, CAMPURTANGAN badan kehakiman (baca : Mahkamah) di dalam menentukan KUASA seorang SPEAKER (badan Legislatif) adalah MENYALAHI undang-undang yang sedia ada WUJUD di Malaysia.
Tak tahulah nak kata apa, seperti yang dah dicerita di dalam posting sebelum ini, MUNGKIN selepas ini kita boleh dapatkan PERINTAH Mahkamah untuk:-
1) MENGHALANG Mahkamah daripada BERSIDANG; dan/atau
2) SPEAKER Dewan boleh MEMBATALKAN perlantikan Hakim-hakim di Mahkamah Malaysia; dan/atau
3) Mana-mana Ahli Parlimen boleh mengundi di dalam Parlimen atau DUN untuk MENOLAK perintah Mahkamah.
Tidak mustahil boleh berlaku.
Maka di sini, DICADANGKAN agar mana-mana Ahli Parlimen yang TIDAK PUAS HATI dengan Speaker Dewan Rakyat / YDP Dewan Negara agar mengambil TINDAKAN MAHKAMAH untuk menghalang Dewan daripada bersidang dan menghalang speaker menjalankan kuasa Speaker.
Kerana DULUAN (Precedent) kes pada hari ini TELAH MEMBUKTIKANNYA bahawa sekarang ini SEMUAnya BOLEH.
Keranamu 1 Malaysia!
Auw! Nyoblos gitu.