22.01.2015 Views

States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

question whether executive law‐making under Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the<br />

PSO was an unconstitutional alienation <strong>of</strong> the legislative power <strong>of</strong><br />

Parliament. Based on the doctrine <strong>of</strong> delegation, however, this<br />

issue was settled that the PSO and regulations made under it were<br />

valid and that there was nothing in the PSO to suggest that<br />

Parliament had abdicated its legislative power. In Weerasinghe
v.
<br />

Samarasinghe (1966), Sansoni C.J., held that, “One thing is<br />

essential <strong>for</strong> the validity <strong>of</strong> a delegation <strong>of</strong> [Parliament’s] lawmaking<br />

power, and that is that it should not abandon its legal<br />

authority to which it has delegated the power. It must not<br />

trans<strong>for</strong>m the executive into a parallel legislature and abdicate its<br />

function.” 305 The two republican constitutions have expressly<br />

provided <strong>for</strong> emergency rule‐making by the executive, and<br />

there<strong>for</strong>e, the more common question to be determined by the<br />

courts in respect <strong>of</strong> impugned regulations or executive and<br />

administrative action nowadays is the question <strong>of</strong> vires. 306<br />

In regard to executive and administrative action under emergency<br />

regulations, it was held in Hirdaramani
v.
Ratnavale (1971) that if<br />

an order (in this case, a detention order by a Permanent Secretary<br />

made under authority <strong>of</strong> an emergency regulation) was produced<br />

and was valid on the its face, it was <strong>for</strong> the petitioner (in this case,<br />

305<br />

Weerasinghe
v.
Samarasinghe (1966) 68 NLR 361 at 363; see also H.M.<br />

Zafrullah (1981) Sri
Lanka’s
Hybrid
Presidential
and
Parliamentary
<br />

System
and
the
Separation
<strong>of</strong>
Powers (Malaya UP): pp.59‐61<br />

306<br />

Articles 16 (1), 155 (1) and 168 (1) <strong>of</strong> the 1978 Constitution;<br />

Wickremabandu
v.
Herath
(1990) 2 SLR 348. On the reasoning <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Supreme Court in Yasapala
v.
Wickremasinghe
(1983) 1 FRD 143, Cooray<br />

has noted that the President’s power <strong>of</strong> making emergency regulations<br />

under the 1978 constitution is ‘co‐extensive’ with that <strong>of</strong> Parliament,<br />

except <strong>for</strong> the limitation as to the period during which emergency<br />

regulations are in <strong>for</strong>ce. The ‘limitation’ is that found in Article 155 (3) to<br />

the effect that emergency regulations override law made by Parliament.<br />

Cooray (1995), op cit, p.750, fn.3<br />

192

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!