00:00 So what we can understand based on the decision made in the Neeline case is how far the power
00:10 that has been established under the constitution of the parliament, the power given to the
00:18 state to make laws and the power given to the body of parliament to make laws.
00:27 So in the context of the decision made by the parliament, it is more determined to
00:35 associate the existing institutions of the parliament so that the body of the state
00:41 constitution or the body of the parliament respects each other, the power that is
00:49 established under the constitution of the parliament.
00:53 So I think, in the first question to Mr. Bumad, the engagement or the matter of the
01:00 matter is fair and will be done.
01:04 In relation to the trend of challenges, I think Mr. Bumad, in the context of separation
01:14 with the permission or the power of the three organs of the existing government, the
01:24 judiciary, the executive and the legislative, I think it is difficult for us to ensure
01:37 that there is an individual or any party that may file a petition in the Supreme Court
01:49 to make a challenge.
01:52 And in the context of the form of the government, the efforts of the separation and
01:59 the efforts to ensure that the judiciary is enforced will be carried out.
02:07 In the context of respecting the three organs of the existing government and the parties
02:15 that will face the court, challenging a provision that has been approved by the
02:24 state government, this power has been given under the constitution of the parliament.
02:30 As Mr. Bumad said, it was given to the parliament under article 128 of the constitution.
02:40 So, any party that feels that the provisions that have been approved by the state body
02:50 have been removed from the existing power of the state body, meaning in the context of
03:00 the Neelin case, the state body of the state of Kelantan to approve several sections in
03:06 the indictment of the crimes of the state of Kelantan.
03:09 As I understand, if we look at what happened in the Supreme Court, not all of the indictments
03:18 of the crimes of the state of Kelantan were challenged.
03:21 What was challenged were several sections in the indictment of the crimes of the state
03:25 of Kelantan on the grounds that the state body of the state has no power to approve
03:30 the provisions.
03:32 So, in this context, Mr. Bumad, first, I answer the second question earlier, in which we
03:39 want to prevent any party from facing or challenging any provision, it is quite difficult.
03:47 We do not know because this is a power.
03:49 If we look at the decision made by the parliament in the Neelin case, although we look, as I
03:58 understand, if we look at the case, usually people who want to file a stand-by locus
04:04 in a provision, challenging a provision, in the Neelin case, although it is not directly
04:11 related to locus, the parliament has decided that Neelin has a locus to face a request
04:22 to challenge a provision in the state of Kelantan.
04:25 So, what was decided in the Neelin case has opened up a wide space for any party to face
04:34 a request to challenge any provision or law as non-constitutional.
04:41 Thank you.
Comments