Hearing

MAJORITY OPINION.—There are two kinds of responses required in the legislative process. There are the ones in the several acts where different positions which oversee the specific portfolio covered by the acts. These are usually phrased like this: "All amendments made to this Act by primary legislation must have received responses from [position]".

This kind of response can be construed as limiting the legislative process established under P2, S1 of the Legislation Act 2025. Any amendment via primary legislation that does not receive the necessary responses, whether they be in the affirmative or in the negative, would be in conflict with existing legislation, and thus be unconstitutional. This, however, was changed with the (currently unapplied) amendment as listed under the Legislation (Defaulted Response) Act 2026 (H.R.129). This provides a mechanism that where "responses are required for amendments by primary legislation" and they are not given by when the legislation reaches stage 3 of the legislative process shall be "considered defaulted and the legislation shall continue through the legislative process".

Then there is the response required by the Director of Digital Service. This is explicitly phrased, in P3, S5(1) of the Digital Services Act 2025, in the following manner: "Any proposed changes to the website mandated via legislation must receive a response from the Director".

The amendment under the Legislation (Defaulted Response) Act 2026 does not apply here, considering it mentions "amendments by primary legislation". The Digital Services Act 2025, however, mentions "proposed changes to the website mandated via legislation", and is therefore not covered by the Defaulted Response amendment. When no response is given, it would prevent the legislation from being enacted, as it would then conflict with existing legislation, and thus be unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE.—When no response is given by the Director of Digital Services on legislation that proposes changes to the website, this would limit the legislation from being enacted, as it would conflict with P3, S5(1) of the Digital Services Act 2025, and therefore also be unconstitutional. This, however, is not the case for other responses where other positions are given the authority to give responses on amendments, due to the unapplied Legislation (Defaulted Response) Act 2026.

When it comes to the timeframe under P3, S5(2) of the Digital Services Act 2025, this is a minimum that may be imposed through legislation. It can therefore be assumed that this is the default implementation timeframe. It would then fall on the Director of Digital Services to inform Congress on the expected timeframe of the website change, and if the default implementation timeframe, of twelve (12) weeks, can be met or not, and must provide an update upon or before the lapse of the twelve (12) weeks.

SO ORDERED.—Associate Justice .Martin delivered the opinion, in which Senior Associate Justices Inconclusive- and Brokyy_ joined.

Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti Abstained.