The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
Introduction This application concerns the rights of refugees to work in the private security industry in South Africa. The matter reaches this Court in the form of an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Bosielo J in the Pretoria High Court.
The first applicant is the Union of Refugee Women, a voluntary association acting in the interests of its members and in the interests of the class of people to whom the applicants belong.
The Council was established in terms of section 5 of the Security Act. In terms of this section the Authority is governed and controlled by the Council.
In terms of section 11 of the Security Act, the Minister exercises overall supervision of the first respondent. Section 23 1 of the Security Act provides as follows: Second to sixth applicants The second to sixth applicants were initially registered by the Authority as security service providers.
On 20 Decemberhowever, they all received notice of intention to withdraw their registration in terms of section 26 4 c of the Security Act 8 on the basis that they were granted registration in error inasmuch as they are neither citizens nor permanent residents of South Africa.
The notice also contained an invitation to them to provide the Authority with all relevant information as to why, despite the requirements of section 23 1 a not having been met, the Authority should not withdraw their registration.
The written representations had to be made within 21 days. In March the Authority replied to the second and fifth applicants and advised that their written representations had been unsuccessful. At the same time the Authority formally withdrew the registration of the second to sixth applicants as security service providers.
Further that the decisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and accordingly invalid. The point was also taken that the requirements for registration set by section 23 1 a when read together with section 23 6 allow the Authority to maintain the registration of these applicants as security service providers despite their being neither citizens nor permanent residents.
The fifth and sixth applicants did not appeal. On 20 September the second to fourth applicants were advised that their appeals had been dismissed. The reasons given by the Appeal Committee were that it was common cause that the Authority had made an error in registering these applicants.
They also found that these applicants, notwithstanding the fact that they had been given an opportunity to do so, had failed to show good cause, and on grounds which are not in conflict with the purpose of the Security Act and the objects of the Authority, why they should be registered.
They therefore had failed to justify the application of section 23 6. Seventh to thirteenth applicants The seventh to thirteenth applicants all applied to be registered as security service providers. The Authority advised that they had been rejected on the basis that they were neither citizens nor permanent residents of South Africa.
The applications of the twelfth and thirteenth applicants were each supported by an affidavit which can be summarised as follows: They are aware of the requirements of sections 23 1 a and 23 6 of the Security Act and Regulations 2 2 b2 2 c and 2 6 made under the Security Act.
They are unable to provide police or official criminal record clearance certificates from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi Embassies in South Africa respectively, as the officials at those embassies would not be able to render unbiased information.
The officials are not trustworthy. Neither of the applicants had been found guilty of any offence specified in the schedule nor had they been found guilty of improper conduct, nor had they been members of any national military, security, police or intelligence force or service, nor had they been employees of any of the national security services.
The seventh to eleventh applicants lodged appeals to the Appeal Committee on grounds similar to those advanced by the second to fourth applicants. These appeals were dismissed for reasons similar to those furnished to the second to fourth applicants. The twelfth and thirteenth applicants did not appeal the decision of the Authority.
Decision of the High Court The applicants approached the High Court and sought to review and set aside the decisions of the Authority and the Appeal Committee.
In the alternative they sought an order declaring section 23 1 a of the Security Act to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. Their application was dismissed with costs.
The High Court held that section 23 1 a does indeed grant South African citizens and permanent residents preferential treatment, but it emphasised that this section cannot be read in isolation.
It thus reached the conclusion that section 23 1 a was sufficiently tempered by section 23 6 to render it constitutionally compliant. Reflecting on the rationale for section 23 1 athe High Court held that: Leave to appeal to this Court The applicants now seek leave to appeal directly to this Court, in terms of Rule 19 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 10 against the judgment and order of the High Court.
The application is apparently also concerned with whether section 23 1 a is inconsistent with section 9 3 and section 9 4 of the Constitution. Leave to appeal directly to this Court will be granted if it is in the interests of justice to do so.
It appears that Lawyers for Human Rights have rendered all services to the applicants without charge and that counsel have rendered their services at reduced rates, and in some instances without remuneration. The application invokes the equality clause and requires consideration of constitutional issues as envisaged by section 3 b of the Constitution.
Moreover, this is an issue of public importance involving a vital regulatory authority as well as reportedly some thousands of refugees. In my view, there are important constitutional issues at stake and the issues involved are all of a constitutional nature. The Court is not called upon to deal with any ancillary, non-constitutional matters.
In addition, direct appeal has the advantage of avoiding delays and reducing costs, which was one of the purposes for which section 6 b of the Constitution was enacted.The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the Constitutional Law I | Article II: Declaration of Principles and State Policies | KSantos.
government and parliament. there was a definite separation. at all times. such as an act of parliament or Congressional legislation. Presentation. Today’s migration makes up the vastest movement of people of all times.
In these last decades, the phenomenon, now involving about two hundred million individuals, has turned into a structural reality of contemporary society.
ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES (EXPLANATION) Section 5.
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POL. §1 Introduction.
Non-normative materials providing a context for the HTML specification. §2 Common infrastructure. The conformance classes, algorithms, definitions, and the common underpinnings of the rest of the specification.
This Regulation lays down rules concerning the placing on the market, making available on the market or putting into service of medical devices for human use and accessories for such devices in the Union.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British kaja-net.com 29 November , the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution (II)..
The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of .