PORTFOLIO LAW487

CLASS: LWB03G

GROUP: GROUP 5

LECTURER: DR AKBAR BIN KAMARUDIN

UPDATED ON: 4/5/2023

GROUP MEMBERS

NO PICTURE NAME STUDENTS ID

1. IHSAN FIQRI BIN MUBIN 2022748689

2. ABDUL HALLIM BIN 2022963901

ZAINULIZAM

MUHAMMAD IMRAN BIN 2022942795

SAID
3.
 4. DAYANG FARAH AMALINA 2022104779
BINTI AHMAD MARZUK

WEEK 1 NGT 1

State 3 importance of Constitutional Law

1. Understanding the structure and principles of government: Constitutional law is

essential for law students to understand how government operates and how it should be
structured in a democratic society. Studying constitutional law helps students learn about
the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, the powers of the executive, and the
importance of checks and balances in preventing abuses of power.

2. Protecting individual rights: The Constitution provides for the protection of individual
rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, and due process. By
studying constitutional law, law students learn about these rights and how they are
protected. This knowledge is crucial for future lawyers to be able to represent clients and
defend their rights against government actions that may violate the Constitution.

3. Shaping legal and policy debates: Constitutional law plays a significant role in shaping
legal and policy debates in the United States. Understanding constitutional law helps
students analyze and understand current events and issues such as voting rights, gun
control, and immigration reform. Law students who have a strong grasp of constitutional
law can contribute to these debates and potentially shape the direction of future legal
and policy decisions.

WEEK 2 NGT 2

State 3 functions of the Conference of Rulers. Support your statements with the relevant
provisions of our Federal Constitution.

The Conference of Rulers is a constitutional body in Malaysia that has several important
functions. Here are three of its key functions, supported by relevant provisions of the Federal
Constitution:
 1. Electing the Yang di-Pertuan Agong: Article 32(3) of the Federal Constitution provides
that the Conference of Rulers shall elect a Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) from
among themselves. The King is the head of state of Malaysia and has significant
ceremonial and symbolic roles. The Conference of Rulers is responsible for selecting the
King every five years, or sooner if a vacancy arises. The Conference of Rulers also has
the power to remove the King from office in certain circumstances (Article 33).

2. Advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong: Article 38 of the Federal Constitution provides
that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Cabinet or a minister
acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except in certain situations. However,
Article 38(2) states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may also consult the Conference of
Rulers on any matter he thinks fit. This means that the Conference of Rulers has a role
in providing advice to the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the
Prime Minister or the dissolution of Parliament.

3. Discussing matters of national importance: The Conference of Rulers is also tasked

with discussing matters of national importance. Article 38(1) of the Federal Constitution
states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall convene a meeting of the Conference of
Rulers at least once a year, or more often if necessary. At these meetings, the
Conference of Rulers can discuss matters of national importance, including any matter
that affects the sovereignty, independence, or security of the country. While the
Conference of Rulers does not have any formal decision-making power on these
matters, its discussions can have a significant impact on national policy and
decision-making.

WEEK 3

ISSUES ON COR

[Link]
ssues-incite-people

- A group of former high-ranking government officials and civil society leaders in Malaysia
have called on the country's rulers and political leaders to stop raising racial and
religious issues that could incite the public.

- The group emphasised the importance of preserving national unity and urged
Malaysians to work together to promote interethnic and interreligious harmony.

- The call reflects concerns over rising political polarization and communal tensions in
Malaysia, particularly in the lead-up to the next general election.
 - The group expressed concern about recent incidents in which politicians have been
accused of using divisive rhetoric to gain support from their respective ethnic or religious
constituencies.

- The article highlights the need for more significant efforts to promote unity and inclusivity
in Malaysian society and to move away from divisive identity politics.

- The article notes that Malaysia has a history of ethnic and religious tensions and that
efforts to promote national unity have sometimes been undermined by political leaders
who exploit these divisions for their gain.

- The article suggests that the call by the group of former officials and civil society leaders
could serve as a reminder to Malaysia's rulers and political leaders of their
responsibilities to promote national unity and inclusivity, particularly in the face of rising
political polarization and communal tensions.

WEEK 4 NGT CASE LAW ON YDPA

CASE:STEPHEN KALONG NINGKAN v TUN ABANG HAJI OPENG AND TAWI SLI

The case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli was a landmark
case in the history of Malaysia, which centered on the issue of state sovereignty and the
constitutional powers of the governor of a state. The case originated in Sarawak, one of the
Malaysian states, in 1966 when Stephen Kalong Ningkan, the then-chief minister of Sarawak,
was dismissed from his position by the governor, Tun Abang Haji Openg. Ningkan, who was the
leader of the Sarawak National Party (SNAP), had been advocating for greater autonomy and
independence for Sarawak, which was then a British colony.

Ningkan challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that the governor had acted beyond his
constitutional powers and that the dismissal was unconstitutional. He claimed that he had the
support of a majority of members of the Sarawak Legislative Assembly and that the governor
had no right to dismiss him without proper grounds. The case went through several rounds of
litigation, with Ningkan initially winning the case in the Sarawak High Court. However, the
decision was overturned on appeal to the Federal Court of Malaysia, which ruled that the
governor had the constitutional power to dismiss the chief minister.
Ningkan then appealed to the Privy Council in London, which at the time was the highest court
of appeal for Malaysia. The Privy Council delivered a landmark decision in favor of Ningkan,
ruling that the governor did not have the power to dismiss the chief minister without a vote of no
confidence in the state assembly. The decision had far-reaching implications, as it established the
principle of parliamentary sovereignty and limited the power of state governors in Malaysia. It
also marked an important milestone in the struggle for greater autonomy and independence for
Sarawak and other Malaysian states.
In conclusion, the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli was a
significant legal battle that helped to shape the constitutional landscape of Malaysia and establish
the principles of parliamentary democracy and state sovereignty.

WEEK 5 NGT CASE LAW ON PM AND CABINET

PM

DATO' SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM v. TAN SRI DATO' MUHYIDDIN MD YASSIN

(PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA) & ANOR

[2021]

The Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. Tan Sri Dato' Muhyiddin Md Yassin (Perdana Menteri Malaysia)
& Others case involves a dispute over the appointment of the Malaysian prime minister in March
2020. The dispute arose after the former prime minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, resigned,
leaving the country without a leader.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim asserted that he had the support of the majority of members of
parliament and should be appointed as prime minister as a result. Nonetheless, Tan Sri Dato'
Muhyiddin Md Yassin was appointed as Prime Minister by the Malaysian King after professing to
have the support of the majority of members of parliament.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim lodged a legal challenge to Tan Sri Dato' Muhyiddin Md Yassin's
appointment, arguing that it was unconstitutional and unlawful. He argued that the King had not
followed proper procedures when designating the prime minister, and that the appointment had
been made without the support of the majority of members of parliament.
The Malaysian High Court heard the case and ultimately rejected Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim's
legal challenge, ruling that Tan Sri Dato' Muhyiddin Md Yassin's appointment was constitutional
and legitimate. Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim then filed an appeal with the Malaysian Court of
Appeal, which was also denied.

Overall, the Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. Tan Sri Dato' Muhyiddin Md Yassin (Perdana Menteri
Malaysia) & Anor case was a significant legal dispute in Malaysian politics that highlighted the
ongoing power struggles and controversies surrounding the appointment of the country's Prime
Minister.

Legal issues:
1) Whether Article 150(6) and (8) of the Federal Constitution are unconstitutional with
regards to Article 4(1), 8 and 121(1) of the Federal Constitution resulting in a void and no
legal effect.
2) Whether the decision of the Cabinet, led by the First Respondent to advice the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong to enforce Section 14 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance
2021 is amenable for judicial review.
3) Whether a mandamus order can be made to direct the Respondents to advise the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong to revoke section 14 of the said Ordinance.

Decision and Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that Article 150(6) and 150(8) of the Federal Constitution were validly enacted by
Parliament pursuant to the power vested in it by Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution. It has
not in any way violated the doctrine of separation of powers and/or inconsistent with Article 4(1)
of the Federal Constitution as argued by the Applicant. Hence, Article 150(6) and (8) is
constitutional and no judicial review can be made to challenge the decision of the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong under Article 150(1) and Article 150 (28) of the Federal Constitution.

The court refers to cases such as Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah lmigresen & Anor
[2021] MLJU 12 and Ravin Joty AIL Kodeeswaran V. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors
[2021] MLJU 195 for the judgment made. Suffice to say the constitutionality of Article 150(6)
and 150(8) of the Federal Constitution and the effect to Section 14 and 18 of the Ordinance, it is
very clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this judicial review application.
Further, the court held that the source of the power to promulgate the Ordinance is in Article 150
of the Federal Constitution and Article 150(6) and (8) of the Federal Constitution expressly
prohibit any challenges to the validity of the Ordinance in any form and on any ground. The
court disagrees with the applicants submissions and ultimately held that the decision and the
advice are all part and parcel of one process that culminated with the promulgation of the
Ordinance by the Yang diPertuan Agong. Since the Applicant is not challenging the decision of
the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the proclamation of emergency, the court sees no reason why
the advice which led to the Agong’s decision should be separated or fragmented from the
decision itself. The court is of the view that the effect is still the same that the advice remained
as an advice and it is not a legal decision. The decision-making process is one and cannot be
fragmented following the case of Tan Sri Musa bin Haji Aman & Ors v Tun Datuk Seri Hj
Panglima Hj Juhar Hj Mahiruddin & Ors [2020] MLJU 2201. Hence, it is not amenable to
judicial review.

In conclusion, the court is of the view that the subject matter of this application is not amenable
to judicial review. It is reiterated that Article 150(6) and (8) of the Federal Constitution are valid
and constitutional. More importantly, Article 150(8) has shut the Court’s doors from any
challenge or application made against the proclamation and the ordinances enacted under the
emergency law.

Cabinet

DATO’ SERI IR HJ MOHAMMAD NIZAR BIN JAMALUDDIN V DATO’ SERI DR

ZAMBRY BIN BIN ABDUL KADIR (ATTORNEY GENERAL, INTERVENER)
[2010] 2 MLJ 28

Facts of the case:

After the general election held on 8 March 2008, the political alliance called Pakatan Rakyat
('PR') won 31 seats out of the 59 seats in the State Legislative Assembly of Perak ('LA'). The
remaining seats went to Barisan Nasional ('BN'). On 17 March 2008, the appellant was appointed
the Chief Minister of Perak ('the CM') by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak ('HRH'). On 5
February 2009 three members of the LA declared and informed HRH that they no longer
supported the PR and instead threw their support behind BN. The appellant then had an audience
with HRH on the same day where he was informed that his request for dissolution of the LA was
rejected by HRH. He was then directed to tender the resignation of the executive council, as he
no longer commanded the confidence of the majority of the members of the LA. The appellant
did not comply with the direction given by HRH. On 6 February 2009 HRH appointed the
respondent as the new CM, replacing the appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of HRH, the
appellant filed an application for judicial review seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs: (i) a
declaration that the appellant was still the CM; (ii) a declaration on the interpretation of art
XVI(6); and (iii) a declaration that the respondent had no legal right to be CM. The appellant
claimed that there had been no motion of no confidence against him in the LA and that he had
not resigned from the post of CM.

Legal issues:

1. Whether Chief Minister may be dismissed from office or Chief Minister's post be deemed
vacant where Chief Minister refuses to tender resignation?
2. Whether motion of no confidence required to dismiss Chief Minister?
3. Whether dismissal of Chief Minister by Sultan effective?
The decision of the court and ratio decidendi:

The court decided to dismiss the case. Raus Sharif JCA (as he then was) agreed with the view
expressed by Kadir Sulaiman J in Amir Kahar and stated that “there is nothing in art XVI(6) or
in any other provisions of the State Constitution stipulating that the loss of confidence in the MB
may only be established through a vote in the LA. As such, evidence of loss of confidence in the
MB may be gathered from other extraneous sources provided, as stated in Akintola, they are
properly established. Such sources, we think, should include the admission by the MB himself
and/or representations made by members of the LA that the MB no longer enjoys the support of
the majority of the members of the LA. In the present case, the Court of Appeal held that there
was evidence of such admission by the appellant himself and what is beyond dispute is the
demonstration of support by the 31 members of the LA for BN. Hence, giving BN a clear
majority in the LA. All these clearly point to the loss of confidence of the majority of the
members of the LA in the leadership of the appellant as the MB.” The court also decided to plain
meaning to the word “shall” as per Raus Sharif JCA , the word 'shall' in art XVI(6), it cannot be
read to mean that the office of Menteri Besar becomes or deemed to be vacant if the Menteri
refuses to resign under the circumstance of art XVI(6) of the Perak's State Constitution. It cannot
be done because the language of art XVI(6) is so plain and obvious. What is so plain and obvious
on art XVI(6) is that the Menteri Besar shall tender his resignation if he faces the circumstances
specified in the said article which is that he has ceased to command the confidence of the
majority in the State Legislative Assembly.