Title: High Court Judges Signal Intervention in Basic Law Amendment in Hearing Against Prime Minister Netanyahu
Subtitle: Prime Minister seeks amendment to protect himself from potential imprisonment
Date: [Insert Date]
Yesterday, the judges of the High Court made it clear to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during a hearing that they have the power to intervene in the Basic Law if it is changed for personal reasons. Netanyahu’s lawyer, Michael Rabillo, attempted to argue that the High Court’s hands were tied, but Supreme Court President Ester Hayut and Vice President Uzi Fogelman, dismissed the claim, stating that later laws cannot be ignored.
The approved amendment, at the center of the hearing, allows the Prime Minister to leave the country for medical reasons only. According to the amendment, this decision lies solely with the Prime Minister himself, but if he is unable to do so, the government has the responsibility to announce it by a majority vote of 75%. Netanyahu fears that Speaker of the House, Gali Beharve-Miara, may try to imprison him for being involved in the legislation of the legal revolution, which goes against the conflict of interest agreement he signed.
During the hearing, an exchange between Supreme Court President Hayut and Attorney Rabillo highlighted the tension between the High Court and the Prime Minister’s defense team. Hayut questioned the Prime Minister’s obligation to obey laws, to which Rabillo responded by warning that if the court exceeds its authority, it risks cutting the branch on which it sits.
The discussion surrounding “later laws” refers to the High Court’s previous recognition of the “abuse of constituent authority” doctrine. This doctrine allows the court to criticize basic laws, as demonstrated in previous cases involving the biennial budget and the “Hauser Compromise” in the Netanyahu-Ganz government. The Knesset attempted to extend the date for elections if the budget was not passed and added a framework of NIS 11 billion to the budget.
The judges emphasized that Basic Laws, which function as a kind of constitution, should not be amended for personal needs. They differentiated between a temporary amendment, as seen in previous cases, and a permanent basic law. The court’s intervention could be seen as a “yellow card” to the Knesset.
The judges have not yet announced a date for their decision. However, it is expected that the decision will be made in the near future. The High Court has the power to reject the petition, issue a conditional order, or even expand the lineup of judges. Once a conditional order is issued, the judges can make it absolute, canceling or postponing the law’s entry into force.
Even before the hearing took place, government ministers sent threatening messages to the judges. Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu warned that if the High Court does not respect the law, the government will not have to respect its rulings. Minister of Information Galit Distel-Atbarian accused the judges of overriding the will of the people. The Speaker of the Knesset, Sagit Afik, presented an opposing position, urging the High Court to reject the petition.
In conclusion, the hearing signaled a potential intervention by the High Court in the amendment to the Basic Law: The Government. Prime Minister Netanyahu seeks protection from potential imprisonment, but the judges emphasized that Basic Laws should not be amended for personal needs. The final decision is eagerly awaited and will have significant implications for Israel’s democracy.