Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
http://www.slideshare.net/ainnabilarosdi/6-constitutional-supremacy-vparliamentary-1-28034038
power, the court still upheld the supreme Constitution.To further strengthen, in the case
of
City Council of George Town vGovernment of Penang
, the subject argued that the laws made by the Governmentof Penang, which are the
City Council of George Town Order 1966 and Municipal(Amendment) Enactment 1966
contravene to the Local Government Election Act1960. Court held that, the laws were
null and void as referred to Article 75 of theFederal Constitution which states that any
state law that is inconsistent with Federallaw shall be void up to its inconsistency and
federal law shall prevail.In contrast of the supremacy of constitution, sovereignty of the
parliament haddifferent views on the highest law applied. States that apply
the sovereignty ofParliament placed legislative assemblies as the highest authority to
make or repeallaw as they think fit and it is supreme over the judicial branch. For
instance, thehighest source of authority in United Kingdom is the Parliament and the
Acts ofParliament.The doctrine is usually referred to the description by Professor A.V
Diecy,which states
Parliament is legally competent to legislate upon any subject matter.By his description,
it reflects that parliament is very powerful where it may pass anylaw as without
restriction. As referred to the
His Majestys Declaration of Abdication Act 1936
, it can beseen that parliament had pass act to alter the succession of a throne. As
KingEdward VIII desired to marry his lover, Wallis Simpson- a divorcee, he had
facedstrong opposition from the Government of United Kingdom and the church as it
maycause constitutional crisis. Due to his marriage to Wallis Simpson, the
Parliamenthad passed the act to remove his throne and His Majesty shall be terminated
to be
King, His Majestys descendants shall not have any rights, title or interest to
the
succession.
, subject was chargedunder Section 372 and 379 of Penal Code, for offences of robbery
and armedrobbery with attempt to cause death. However, he may be also be charged
underSection 5 of the Firearms Act 1971 which carries the penalties of imprisonment
forlife and whipping not less than 6 strokes. The accused argued that the Firearms Actis
ultra vires to the Article 8 of the Federal Constitution that provides equal protectionof
law. Courts had exercise the judicial review towards the case and held that TheFirearms
Act 1971contravened the constitution.However, the states that apply sovereignty of
Parliament do not exercise thedoctrine of judicial review. This statement is further fortify
by the description of A.VDicey which states, once Parliament have legislated, no one
outside Parliament canenquire into the validity of the legislation including the exercise of
judicial review.In the case of Pickins v British Railway Board, before 1968, Acts of
Parliamentprovided that the land acquired by the old railway company to place the trail
shall bereturn to the adjoining land owners if the trails stop its service. In 1968,
Parliamentpassed the British Railway Act that removes the rights to revert. The plaintiff,
theowner of the adjoining land argued that the act of Parliament should be invalid as
itwas passed through a faulty Parliamentary procedure. The court held that,
theparliament shall not be questioned in any other in any matter.