Latest news with #judges
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia
In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
The Independent
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Lawyer who once defended drug kingpin 'El Chapo' questions critics of her judicial victory
Of the roughly 2,600 judges elected for the first time by Mexicans earlier this month, Silvia Delgado García received more attention than almost any other because she once helped represent drug kingpin Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán. That single client in a nearly two decade career as a criminal defense attorney in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, made Delgado standout in the historic June 1 election, name recognition that may have helped her victory formally certified Thursday. Delgado won a spot as a criminal court judge in Ciudad Juarez in the June 1 election. At Thursday's ceremony, Delgado smiled, got emotional and received hugs. Speaking to reporters later, she said it was time for her defense work to stop being described as a 'tie' to the drug lord. She was just doing her job, she said. 'The only thing that we do is a job,' she said. 'The decision to enter in this electoral process was very simple: I wanted to strengthen my career helping the community. I've helped so many here, helping defend.' In 2016, Delgado García was a member of Sinaloa cartel leader Guzmán's legal team when he was temporarily held in a prison in Ciudad Juarez before being extradited to the United States. He was eventually tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. Some critics of electing judges, and a human rights litigation group called Defensorxs, had labeled Delgado García 'high risk' before the vote, because 'she defends alleged drug traffickers.' Hailed as a way to make corrupt judges accountable to the people and clean up Mexico's judiciary by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the historic elections that covered more than 2,600 positions ranging up to the country's Supreme Court, drew only a paltry 13% voter participation. Critics feared it would politicize the judiciary and offer organized crime an easier path to influencing judicial decisions. Mexico's governing Morena party was poised to gain control of the Supreme Court as a majority of the winners had strong ties to the party or were aligned ideologically. On Thursday, Delgado noted that she had been called out for petitioning the court that Guzmán be given a blanket in prison. 'Is it bad that if a person is not accustomed to the cold that he have a blanket?' she asked. 'I have been in the eye of the hurricane for that reason.'
Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Times
Robots won't replace us, say judges
Artificial intelligence could cut paperwork, allow courts to focus on complex cases and deliver 'audience specific' summaries of rulings — but robots won't replace human beings on the bench. At least that is the view of judges themselves, according to a report published this week by three international academics specialising in law and technology. Human judgment in the courts is 'non-negotiable', the professors say, as they reflect the view of a judicial focus group. 'Moral reasoning, fact-finding in first-instance trials and the dignity of face-to-face justice must remain human-led,' is the message from a group of a dozen judges, including five from the Supreme Court. The authors of the report are an interesting factor because none is based in the UK and therefore the team is arguably free of romantic bias for red gowns and long ceremonial wigs.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Finalists are selected for two judge openings in 10th Judicial Circuit
The Judicial Nominating Committee for the 10th Judicial Circuit has named finalists for two judge openings. The nominees applied for openings created by the retirement of County Judge Mary Catherine Green and the resignation of Circuit Judge Torea Spohr. The nominees to replace Spohr are Norda Nathalie Swaby Boggs, assistant state attorney with the 10th Judicial Circuit; Andrea DeMichael, a Lakeland lawyer; Julia 'JC' Caldwell Hill, assistant state attorney; Ruth Moracen Knight, assistant public defender; Renee Margaret Reid, assistant public defender; Monica Smith, assistant state attorney; Jennifer Lynn Steimle, magistrate with the 10th Judicial Circuit; Tara Sweet, assistant public defender; and Rachelle Williamson, a Polk County judge. The nominees to replace Green are Lee Adam Cohen, a Lakeland lawyer; Alison Fox, assistant state attorney; James Headley, a Lakeland lawyer; Christina Pawlus, senior attorney for the Florida Department of Transportation; Joseph Ravello, assistant United States attorney; and Valerie Wright, assistant state attorney. Interviews will be conducted by the 10th Judicial Circuit Judicial Nominating Committee on June 20 at the offices of Hardin, Ball and Tondreault, P.A. The 10th Judicial Circuit, based in Bartow, covers Polk, Highlands and Hardee counties. This article originally appeared on The Ledger: Finalists named for replacements for two judges in Polk County
Forbes
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Forbes
The World's Best Blended Scotch Whisky—According To The 2025 ASCOT Awards
The American Spirits Council of Tasters--or ASCOTs, for short--has just released its big winners for 2025. Well, sorta. As has became standard practice for competitions these days, the intel is meted out in drips and drams so that consumers can be kept on their toes throughout the year, as opposed to having it all over and done with in one succinct announcement. In the case of the ASCOTs, we now have the first round of medalists as designated by its prestigious panel of judges, consisting of 54 talented individuals from every corner of the industry; journalists, bartenders, educators, and assorted media personalities. According to its website, the council promises to reveal Best in Category winners, followed by Whiskey and Non-Whiskey of the Year in the weeks ahead--all leading up to the big reveal: 2025 Best In Show. You can trust that there'll be ample buzz generated around those bottles (last year's Bourbon of the Year was virtually unknown at the time and was ripped from shelves almost immediately thereafter). In the meantime, we can share with you the grand winner in one broad category of brown booze, at least. And it's one that hardly could be considered unknown to any self-respecting sipper. The top prize for Blended Scotch Whisky of the Year goes to Chivas Regal 12 Year Old. One of the best-selling scotches on the market today, the Pernod Ricard-owned label is both easy-drinking and complex. It carries a custardy, slightly banana-laden nose, evolving into spiced barley and candied walnuts atop the palate. Subtle pepper spice tickles the tongue before the 80-proof spirit fades from memory. Its enviable performance at this year's ASCOTs can hardly be seen as an outlier. This particular expression has been hauling home the hardware on the competition circuit in recent years. F. Paul Pacult, respected founder of the Ultimate Spirits Challenge, recently referred to Chivas 12 as 'the blend for grownups.' He wasn't suggesting that underaged drinkers are drawn to all those other blends, of course. Merely that the overarching category of blended scotch more generally appeals to the masses. After all, it does definitionally carry a large component of lighter grain spirit in its mix. And so it can lack the deep complexities aimed at the elevated palates of single malt connoisseurs (effete sarcasm intended). Those stereotypes are unfounded because, yes, blended scotch, can be both complex and widely-appealing at the same time. And Chivas Regal 12 underscores the point. Best of all, it does so at a price point of roughly $20 per bottle. Try finding a worthwhile single malt for that! The ASCOT judges, for their part, will certainly try. They will conduct a taste-off between three peated and three non-peated expressions of single malt scotch in the upcoming weeks. I'll be sure to weigh in with my commentary on the ultimate winner. So keep it parked here to stay informed. Meanwhile, just remember that great whisky arrives in all different price-tags and categories.
