Constitutional Court Rejects PCHR’s Petition Challenging the Constitutionality of the Ministerial Amendment Made to the Executive Bill of Charitable Associations and Community Organizations Law for Non-Competence

Ref: 57/2012

Yesterday, 18
June 2012, the Supreme Court in Gaza, in its capacity as the constitutional
court, rejected the opportunity to consider the petition filed by the
Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), challenging the decision made by
the Council of Ministers in Gaza no. 299/2011. 
The ministerial decision was issued to amend the Council of Ministers’
decision no. 9/2003 Concerning the Executive Bill of the Charitable
Associations and Community Organizations Law 1/2002.

On 30 April
2012, PCHR filed a constitutional petition, in which PCHR requested the
respondent, represented by the prosecution, to reveal the reasons behind
issuing the decision in violation of the law. 
In addition, PCHR requested non-application of this decision, pending a determination
of the petition, in addition to issuing a final ruling nullifying the
challenged decision.

The Court held
its first hearing on 07 June 2012, but delayed their consideration of the
petition to 18 June 2012, as both PCHR, as the appellant party, and the
prosecution, representing the respondent, had to present their legal arguments
within a week from the date of the decision.

The challenged decision
explicitly violates constitutional law as it grants the Ministry of Interior
additional unconstitutional powers at the expense of the competent ministry,
whose role is to follow up on the associations’ affairs, which was taken into
account by the legislature.  Additionally,
this decision constitutes a violation of the powers of the legislative
authority, as the respondent, the Council of Ministers, overtakes the executive
powers granted to it under the Basic Law to a legislative power by adding 2
articles to the Executive Bill of the Law.[1]

In the coming
days, PCHR will take the necessary legal steps to continue to express their
position against the ministerial decision, out of its belief that the
challenged decision constitutes an obvious violation of the rule of law and the
separation of powers.  This decision also
goes beyond the limits of the powers of the Council of Ministers, in its
capacity as an executive authority, through the establishment of new legal positions
that are not included under the law.