Knesset Speaker Shevach Weiss:

Members of the Knesset, today’s agenda, or a primary and central subject of it, will relate to the relations between the Knesset and the High Court of Justice. This is the issue we have chosen to debate for the Knesset’s birthday that is marked on the 15th of Shvat. The Knesset will be 45. We pushed up the marking of this event as we wanted the discussion to take place at the center of the agenda of our house of representatives, on Tuesday.

Several Members of the Knesset have raised a suggestion to dedicate this birthday to self-examination, for a thorough and yet concise examination of the complex and important relationship, which is at times problematic and fascinating, among the two branches: The legislative branch and the judicial branch. I would like to thank MK Avraham Burg who raised the idea, Chairman of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee MK Dedi Zucker, Chairman of the House Committee MK Hagai Meirom, and a group of other members: Michael Eitan, Yitzhak Levy and others, who were partners in this initiative.

I would like to welcome amongst us for the second time, after doing so in my chambers, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Deputy Chief Justice, current and former Justices of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, members of her office and other judges that have joined us, the Director of the Court System, and all of our highly distinguished guests. I hope that the discussion will be of interest.

The judges surely understand that we have made an effort that there shouldn’t be too many Knesset members, so that there will be no feeling of improper balance, and that the number of MKs will not exceed the number of judges. We have done our best…

Ladies and gentlemen, I will begin by saying that before holding any event we prepare a brochure of information with documents, articles and remarks. Our Information Gathering Unit and the unit for instruction of teachers and students do it with much love and dedication. Such is the brochure we have laid before the Knesset members. I would like to open with a quote from its preface, and then we will begin with the discussion.

In a court ruling, which I will disclose later, the High Court of Justice determined, by Meir Shamgar: “The proper balance between the need to insure the law’s existence and the need to respect the uniqueness of the Knesset in its decisions on internal affairs, was created on the basis of a criteria that examines the essence and the weight of damage created in a concrete incident ---- After a verdict is given, it is an obligation to honor it in its essence and in its written form. The obligation is an expression of the necessity to regularize a society by basic norms, which enable the existence of an organized framework found under law restriction. It is not the court’s status put on trial, but the honor of the Knesset. There is no imagining that a commitment by a Knesset Speaker --- “, and so on, it is not important at the moment. This case examined a commitment made by a Speaker of the Knesset.

I bring this before you to introduce the following problem: There is a feeling of sovereignty among many Knesset members, and an increasing recognition within the Supreme Court that the rule of law also applies, and maybe mostly, on the legislature itself. It can change that, but once the legislation was made, it must follow the act of legislation. All of these issues will most probably be discussed here today.

I would like to say that the Supreme Court is a central partner in legislation, by designing the constitution through its verdicts. It is through its interpretations that it commits a central work of secondary legislation. At this historical time, when we have not yet finished the legislation of a constitution, it fills the void, and eventually, when the process is completed, whoever will examine our constitution and its creation will find actual contributions made by our courts and judges. It is in this way that we have fascinating cooperation between the constituent assembly and the courts, and especially that of the Supreme Court. The significant historical verdicts, such as Shauki al-Karbuteli vs. The Minister of Defense, Ziv vs. Gubernik, “Kol HaAm” vs. The Minister of Interior and Peretz vs. Kfar Shemaryahu Local Council, and many others, Bergman vs. The Minister of Finance and State Comptroller – they are all in favor of the rule of law in the State of Israel.

On this note, I ask you to begin the discussion. Members of the Knesset, we have several speakers, each of which will make an effort to express his fundamental ideas in 7-10 minutes, and they will be followed by the Minister of Justice.