Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 1428

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PENGERUSI SURUHANJAYA PILIHANRAYA MALAYSIA (ELECTION COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA) – Appellant
Versus
SEE CHEE HOW & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: Q-01(NCVC)(A)-166-06-2015]

Petitioner Advocates:Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh,Shamsul Bolhassan,Azizan Md Arshad,Nik Azrin Zairin Nik Abdullah ,Respondent Advocate: Cyrus Das,Ambiga Sreevasan,James Au Wie Wern,See Chee How,Desmond Kho,Jamilah Baharuddin

Election Commission's notice on constituency delineation met constitutional requirements, adequately allowing public representation.

Headnote:[1] This judgment examines compliance with the procedural requirements under section 4 of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution regarding the proposed recommendations for constituency delineation by the Election Commission. The Commission's notice and detailed particulars were challenged as insufficient by the respondents, who argued their constitutional right to make representations was compromised. The court found the Election Commission acted within its authority, and the details provided met the constitutional requirements. [2] The core issue was whether the Election Commission's representation notice violated requirements in sections 4(a) and 5(b) of the Thirteenth Schedule, pertaining to public consultation and the ability of voters to make informed objections. The court upheld that sufficient details were provided to satisfy legal requirements, rejecting claims of impairment of constitutional rights. [3] The appeal is allowed, and the prior orders of the High Court are set aside, affirming the validity of the Election Commission's notice and procedure as compliant with constitutional standards.

Table of Content
1. constitutional provisions for constituency delimitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondents' objection to compliance with procedural requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's analysis of voter representation and constitutional rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
4. legal interpretation of 'effect' requiring sufficient detail. (Para 36 , 38 , 39)
5. final verdict affirming election commission's compliance. (Para 95)

Abdul Rahman Sebli JCA:

Introduction

[1] Pursuant to the passing of the Dewan Undangan Negeri (Composition of Membership) Bill 2014, the enactment of the Dewan Undangan Negeri (Composition of Membership) Ordinance 2014 and the gazette notification of the amendment to cl (2) of art 14 of the Constitution of the State of Sarawak, the Election Commission ("the EC") undertook a review of the division of the Federal and State Constituencies for the purpose of election in the State of Sarawak. The review was undertaken after a lapse of eight years from the date of completion of the last review. Eleven new State Constituencies were proposed, increasing the number to 82 from the existing 71.

[2] On 5 January 2015, the EC published a notice on the proposed recommendations in four newspapers, namely the English language New Sarawak Tribune, the Malay language Utusan Sarawak, the New Straits Times and the Sabah Edition of the Borneo Post, both English language newspapers. It was also posted on the official website of the EC. Published together with the notice were the First and Second Schedules annexed to the notice. The notice reads:

"TAKE NOTICE that the Election Commission, in accordance with the requirement of cl (2) of art 113 of the Federal Constitution , has reviewed the division of the State of Sarawak into Federal Constituencies and State Constituencies

2. Consequent upon the review, the Election Commission proposes to recommend in their report such recommendations:

(a) no alteration to the Federal Constitution for the State of Sarawak;

(b) the number of State Constituencies for the State of Sarawak is increased by eleven Constituencies making the overall total of the State Constituencies for the State of Sarawak at 82 Constituencies;

(c) for the purpose of the review of the delimitation of Constituencies, there are amendments made to the name of the Federal Constituencies involving one Federal Constituency in the State of Sarawak; and

(d) there are also amendments made to the name of the State Constituencies in the State of Sarawak.

3. The total number of voters in the Electoral Rolls which was endorsed and gazetted on 30 April 2014 was used for the purpose of the review of the delimitation of the Federal and State Constituencies in the State of Sarawak.

4. Detailed particulars of the proposed recommendations for the State of Sarawak regarding the new Federal and State Constituencies in the State of Sarawak are specified in the First Schedule.

5. Detailed particulars of the proposed recommendations regarding the overall Federal and State Constituencies in the State of Sarawak are specified in the Second Schedule.

6. A copy of the proposed recommendations together with the Draft Constituencies Plan for the State of Sarawak may be inspected from 5 January 2015 during normal office hours at the places specified in the Third Schedule.

7. According to s 4(c), Part II of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution , representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Election Commission within one month after the date of publication of this Notice.

8. In accordance with s 5, Part II of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution , parties who can make representations objecting to the proposed recommendations are:

(a) the State Government; or

(b) any local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the constituencies affected by the recommendations; or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 1428

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPENGERUSI SURUHANJAYA PILIHANRAYA MALAYSIA (ELECTION COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA) – AppellantVersusSEE CHEE HOW & ANOR – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: Q-01(NCVC)(A)-166-06-2015]

Election Commission's notice on constituency delineation met constitutional requirements, adequately allowing public representation.

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PENGERUSI SURUHANJAYA PILIHANRAYA MALAYSIA (ELECTION COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA) – Appellant
Versus
SEE CHEE HOW & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: Q-01(NCVC)(A)-166-06-2015]