Sir, – Some of the unfavourable comment on the drafting on the two proposed amendments to the Constitution is getting dangerously overheated. An important point has been overlooked, in that most of the focus has been on the amendments in isolation from the rest of the Constitution; whereas, if they ever came to be interpreted in a court (or by any competent lawyer), they would be read in the context of relevant provisions in the existing Constitution.
Thus, to take the judicial salaries amendment, the governing principle here is the existing Article 35.2. This states that: “All judges should be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions . . .” Thus, to take the example which appears to be giving nightmares all over Dublin 4, if any future government were mad and bad enough to try to introduce a “judges tax” aimed solely at judges, this would not only violate the proposed amendment but it would also violate the existing Article 35.2.
This is clear, for instance, from McMenamin v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 100 which, in circumstances very relevant to the present, held that this Article was violated because district court judges, at that time, had an inadequate pension, and that this was unconstitutional in that it could, theoretically, undermine their independence.
Secondly, take the Oireachtas inquiries amendment and the controversy of whether this cuts off judicial review. The existing Article 34.3.1 (“. . . the High Court [has] full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal.”), as authoritatively interpreted in Tormey v Ireland [1985] IR 289, makes it clear that judicial review, which is pretty well the leading principle of the Constitution, cannot be uprooted.
There are, of course, more positive reasons to vote for these amendments. But the purpose of this letter is simply to suggest that fears of an anti-Constitution coup, by the Government, are merely a rather arcane form of horror-fantasy. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I will be voting Yes to the proposed 30th Amendment which will give both houses of the Oireachtas powers to hold inquiries on matters of public importance. The power to hold such inquiries is a basic function of democratically elected assemblies across the globe.
The total absence of any answers or accountability for our banking, property, and financial crisis demonstrates that these powers are sorely needed in Ireland. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment on Oireachtas inquiries (The “Abbeylara referendum“) appears to be mounting.
However, if this referendum is defeated next week, then bankers, rezoners and other vested interests are going to breathe a huge sigh of relief. We voters will have thrown away a crucial opportunity to get to the bottom of what happened to our banks and much else that has gone wrong in recent years.
The US, the UK and many other countries have used these powers of inquiry for the most part very well indeed, but our cynicism towards our own legislators now seems too entrenched for us to allow a similar system to be put in place here.
I think that is a great shame, because while we do have many poor legislators, we also have some first-class independently minded TDs and senators who would be well able, and well placed, to expose bad decisions and bad practices in a public forum.
Not being a lawyer, I cannot assert that there is no risk of the proposed system being abused, but I would say that that risk needs to be weighed against the huge potential there would be for exposing corruption and bad practices in a way our existing systems and structures have obviously failed to do. – Yours, etc,