Hearing

MAJORITY OPINION.—The petitioner requests that Treasury (External Affairs Regulations) Act 2026 (S.326) be declared constitutional, despite the common framework errors present within the legislation.

(1 & 2) The petitioner argues, from P7, S3(1) of the Legislation Act 2025 that the "Supreme Court may not fail a piece of legislation which does not conflict with existing law". This is correct. But where the petitioner is incorrect, is in assuming that a "formatting error" does not count as a conflict with existing law. P17, S1 of the Legislation Act 2025 states that the "Speaker […] shall be charged with keeping a document which lists a set of rules for the structure of legislation called the Common Frameworks which shall be available for all employees to view". The operative phrase here being "a set of rules for the structure of legislation". The petitioner's bill is therefore conflicting with P17, S1 of the Legislation Act 2025, and it must therefore be assumed that the Common Frameworks be considered law, even if P17, S1 does not explicitly state that they shall be considered law. Furthermore, P11, S1(2) of the Legislation Act 2025 states that the "Speaker or the President Pro Tempore shall send a bill to the graveyard if it meets one or more of the requirements in Section 2 of this Part". The operative word here is "shall", as it establishes an obligation, a duty to graveyard bills which are not in line with the common frameworks, which is established as a requirement under P11, S2(3) of the same Act. The Supreme Court has also declared legislation unconstitutional for not meeting the frameworks in earlier rulings. It is therefore ample evidence in law to suggest, firstly, that the common frameworks be considered law through P17, S1 of the Legislation Act 2025 and, secondly, that legislation which is not in line with the common frameworks should not be enacted.

(3) Enforcement of the common frameworks is partly assigned to Congress, in part through the Joint Committee on Rules, which – admittedly – "may" establish a rule for specific bills that it must be edited to conform with the common frameworks under P12, S1(3)(1)(1)(3) of the Legislation Act 2025. But as mentioned above, this enforcement is also to be carried out by the Speaker and President Pro Tempore under P11, S1(2) and P11, S2(3) of the Legislation Act 2025 – as a legislated duty. That none of these avenues were used, however, is shocking and paints a broader picture of Congress’ incompetence. The Joint Committee on Rules, the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore have all thus entirely abdicated their responsibilities and, in the case of the latter two, neglected their duty. It then falls to the Supreme Court, as the last check on legislation, to block legislation which – as established above – conflicts with existing provisions of law and to assert the rules of legislation created under the Legislation Act 2025.

(4) The decision states who penned the court opinion (Associate Justice .Martin) and which justices joined the opinion (Chief Justice dreckly and Senior Associate Justice Brokyy_). This was the only opinion. Had someone voted to declare the legislation constitutional, that would have been reflected in an attached dissenting opinion.

WHEREFORE.—The appeal is declined, and the original ruling on the judicial review of Treasury (External Affairs Regulations) Act 2026 (S.326) is upheld.

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