Protests in Israel: the most controversial moments of the judicial reform dividing the country

Israel is mired in the biggest constitutional crisis since its founding in 1948, when a new government came to power. Benjamin Netanyahu announced his plan for judicial reform, which aims to reduce the independence of the judiciary and increase control over it by the executive branch.

The legislation, the most controversial aspects of which are already pending in the Knesset (Israeli parliament), sparked the largest protests in Israeli history, which drew a record 650,000 people last night after Netanyahu sacked the defense minister. Yoav Gallantfor a request to stop processing it.

The government argues that the Supreme Court has historically interfered too much in political matters, so its powers need to be limited; while opponents of reform argue that an independent judiciary is vital to the democratic health of a country where the legislative and executive powers tend to merge as the always governing coalition monopolizes the parliamentary majority with almost absolute power to impose laws.

Here are the most controversial moments of the reform:

1- Choice of judges:

The committee responsible for advising on the appointment of judges currently consists of nine members, including sitting judges, representatives of the Israel Bar Association, members of the Knesset and the government; so an agreement between all is required for the selection of judges.

The reform proposed by Justice Minister Yariv Levin aims to expand the committee to eleven and change the composition of the committee: three ministers and three MPs from the coalition, in addition to three independent judges and two MPs from the opposition; which would give the government a majority of six members out of eleven.

This is a watered-down version of the judge selection law, amended a week ago because the original wording gave the government a seven-member majority with absolute power to elect and dismiss all judges, including Supreme Court judges. This law was expected to be approved in the Knesset this week.

2- Judicial review:

The proposed changes are intended to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing legislation, including the Basic Law, a body of laws that has constitutional status. The reform requires that an 80% consensus of the panel of judges of the Supreme Court is required to invalidate any law, while now only a simple majority is needed.

This is a point defended even by some opponents of reform, as many feel that the Supreme Court has too much power to overturn laws, although they vary in form, and argue that it takes more than a simple majority to approve or change fundamental laws. laws in parliament.

3- Cancellation Clause:

This is one of the most controversial aspects because it allows a simple parliamentary majority (61 MPs out of 120) to annul Supreme Court rulings when they involve repealing or changing laws.

Opponents of the law see this paragraph as a clear violation of the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary and, therefore, a serious threat to Israeli democracy. The bill, which includes an annulment clause that also protects laws from judicial review, was passed at first instance two weeks ago and its final approval has been delayed until May, after the Pesach recess.

4- Legal advisers of ministries:

The government-sponsored reform aims to reclassify ministerial legal adviser positions, which until now have been independent experts controlled by the Ministry of Justice, into politically elected lawyers. In addition, the opinions of these consultants will no longer be binding and enforceable.

Thus, the respective ministers will have full control over the selection and dismissal of advisers, which for the opponents of the reform means a clear politicization of judicial control.

5- Intelligence:

The reform seeks to limit the scope of the notion of “reasonableness” under which courts can subject any government decision, including the appointment of civil servants, to judicial review on their own initiative, depending on whether they consider the measure to be reasonable or unreasonable.

Based on this criterion, the Supreme Court found in January “unreasonable” the appointment of ultra-Orthodox leader Aryeh Deri as interior and health minister, months after he was convicted of tax fraud and avoided jail time in exchange for a plea agreement in one who vowed to retire from politics. EFE