|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
Κυπριακή νομολογία στην οποία κάνει αναφορά η απόφαση αυτή:
Μεταγενέστερη νομολογία η οποία κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή:
Δεν έχει εντοπιστεί απόφαση η οποία να κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή
(1985) 3 CLR 2183
1985 September 21
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., MALACHTOS, SAVVIDES, LORIS,
STYLIANIDES, PIKIS, KOURRIS, JJ.]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC,
Applicant,
v.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Respondent.
(Reference No. 4/85).
Constitutional Law-Constitution-Articles 46, 52, 54, 61, 73, 78, 82, 87, 140 and 179 House of Representatives- Cannot participate in the exercise of executive power, which was entrusted to the President of the Republic-Laws which are enacted by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution are promulgated pursuant to Article 52 by the President of the Republic.
Constitutional Law-Separation of state powers.
Competence of the Greek Communal Chamber (Transfer of Exercise) and Ministry of Education Law, 1965, Law No. 12/65.
On the 19th July 1985 the President of the Republic referred, under Article 140 of the Constitution, to the Supreme Court for its Opinion the question as to whether sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Law, 1985, which are referred to in Appendix 1 to the Reference, are repugnant to, or in consistent with, the provisions of Articles 46, 54, 61, 87, 89 and 179 of the Constitution. (The text of the sub judice law is quoted at pp. 2190-2195 post).
Held, (A) (Per Triantafyllides, P., Malachtos, Savvides, Loris and Stylianides, JJ.): (1) The provisions of sections 2 and 4 of the sub judice law, whereby the appointment and the termination of the appointment by the President of the Republic of the members of the Educational Service Commission and of the Revisional Committee for the Educational Service are to be subject to the approval of the House of Representatives, are repugnant to and inconsistent with Article 61 and consequently with Article 179 of the Constitution, because they envisage participation of the House of Representatives in the exercise of executive power, entrusted to the President of the Republic.
(2) The provisions. of section 5 of the sub judice law whereby there was enacted a new section 76 of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969-1985 and provided that, in case the Council of Ministers does not make and place before the House of Representatives Regulations in pursuance to s. 76 within the time-limit provided by sub-section 1 of the same section, the House of Representatives, is empowered to make itself such Regulations, which are to be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic as approved by a decision of, the House, do not come within the ambit of the legislative power of the House by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution because laws of the House of Representatives, which are enacted by virtue of. Article 61 are promulgated by the, President of the Republic pursuant to Article 52 of the Constitution, whereas the sub judice law provides that the Regulations to be made by the House are to be published by the House itself, notwithstanding the fact that such regulations are because of their nature, primary and not subsidiary legislation.
(3) Since the above unconstitutional provisions of the sections aforesaid cannot be separated from the remaining provisions of the same sections, these sections are as a whole, when viewed integral legislative provisions, repugnant to and inconsistent with Article 61 of the Constitution and, therefore; with Article 179 of the Constitution.
(4) Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the sub judice Law, in respect of which the opinion of the Court by means of this referred, has not been sought, are not affected by the present opinion.
(B) Per Pikis, J. (Kourris, J. concurring): (1) The Constitution provides for a strict separation between the jurisdiction of the legislative and executive branch of the State and prohibits the exercise of competence by anyone of the two outside its constitutional domain. Depending on the nature of the office an appointment constitutes an executive or administrative act wholly outside the power of the legislature.
(2) Article 61 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives to matters not "expressly reserved to the Communal Chamber under, this Constitution". Therefore, the only basis for the exercise of legislative power in relation to matters affecting the Communal Chamber derives from section 3(2) of The Competence of the Greek Communal Chamber (Transfer of Exercise) and Ministry of Education Law 12/65, which transferred in the name of the law of necessity the legislative jurisdiction of the Greek Communal Chramber to the House of Representatives. The allocation of the powers of the Greek Communal Chamber is not an issue in these proceedings nor the need that led to its enactment. The House of Representatives did not invoke the law of necessity for the enactment of the sub judice law. This Court is not required to decide whether the House of Representatives as arbiters of the law of necessity can, reallocate after the lapse of 20 years the powers of the Greek Communal Chamber.
(3) The legislative power of the House is limited to the enactment of primary legislation (and the same applies to its legislative powers deriving under section 3 (2) of Law 12/65) and the taking of decisions as expressly provided in the Constitution. In the exercise of such powers the House must comply with the procedure laid down by Articles 73 and 78 of the Constitution. Moreover the Constitution provides (Art. 52) for the promulgation of the laws and decisions of the House by publication in the Official Gazette. The Constitution confers no regulatory powers to the House outside the ambit of their legislative competence.
(4) In view of the above the impugned provisions of the sub judice law are repugnant to and inconsistent with Articles 61, 54, 87 (as applied by the law of necessity and given effect to by Law 12/65) and Article 179 of the Constitution. They also defy the separation of State Powers a constituent element of the constitutional structure of the State of Cyprus.
Opinion as above.
Cases referred to:
President of the Republic v. House of Representatives (1985) 3 C.L.R. 2137;
President of the Republic v. House of Representatives (1985) 3 C.L.R. 1724;
Cleanthis Georghiades v. The Republic (1966) 3 C.L.R. 252;
Springer v. Government of Philippines Islands, 72 L. Ed. 845.
Reference.
Reference by the President of the Republic for the opinion of the Supreme Court whether the provisions of sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No.2) Law,1985 are repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 46, 54, 61, 87, 89 and 179 of the Constitution.
L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic with N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the President of the Republic.
A. Markides with D. Chrysomilas, for the House of Representatives.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the opinion of the Court: On the 19th July 1985 the President of the Republic referred, under Article 140 of the Constitution, to the Supreme Court for its Opinion the question to whether sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Law, 1985, which are referred to in Appendix 1 to the Reference, are repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of Articles 46, 54, 61, 87, 89 and 179 of the Constitution.
The said Law was enacted by the House of Representatives on the 4th July 1985 (the text of the Law is attached hereto).
On the 5th July 1985 the House of Representatives transmitted the Law to the President of the Republic, who, before promulgating it pursuant to Article 52 of the Constitution, filed the present Reference.
The Supreme Court on the 28th and 29th August 1985 heard, through their counsel, arguments on behalf of the President of the Republic and of the House of Representatives, in accordance with Article 140.2 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court considered the question referred to it and the unanimous opinion of the majority of its Members (M. Triantafyllides, Y. Malachtos, L. Savvides, A. Loris and D. Stylianides) is the following:
(1)The provisions of section 2 of the sub judice Law, by means of which sect on 4 of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969-1985 was amended so to prescribe that the appointments by the President. of the Republic of the Chairman and of the Members of the Educational Service Commission, as well as the termination of their appointments by the President of the Republic, are to be subject to the approval of the House of Representatives, envisage participation of the House of Representatives in the exercise of executive power which was entrusted to the President of the Republic and, therefore, are beyond the limits of the legislative power of the House of Representatives by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution, and, consequently they are repugnant to and inconsistent with, the said Article 61 of the Constitution.
(2) The provisions of the new section 5A of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969-1985, which were added by section 4 of the sub judice Law, and by means of which it is prescribed that the appointments by the President of the Republic of the Members of the Review Committee for the Educational Service, which is established by the said new section 5A, as well as the termination of their appointments by the President of the Republic, are to be subject to the approval of the House of Representatives, envisage participation of the House of Representatives in the exercise of executive power which was entrusted to the President of the Republic and, therefore, are beyond the limits of the legislative power of the House of Representatives by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution and, consequently, they are repugnant to, and inconsistent with, the said Article 61 of the Constitution.
(3) By section 5 of the sub judice Law there was enacted a new section 76 of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969-1985, by means of which, in case the Council of Ministers, does not make and place before the House of Representatives Regulations, in pursuance with the said section 76, within the time-limit provided by subsection (1) of that same section, the House of Representatives is empowered to make itself such Regulations, which are to be published in the official Gazette of the Republic as approved by a decision of the House of Representatives. However, the said section 5, and, consequently, also, the new section 76, do not come within the ambit of the legislative power of the House of Representatives by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution, because laws of the House of Representatives, which are enacted by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution, are promulgated by the President of the Republic, pursuant, to Article 52 of the Constitution, and not by the House of Representatives, whereas in the present instance it is, laid down that the Regulations to be made by the House of Representatives, by virtue of section 76 of the sub judice Law, are to be published by the House of Representatives itself, and not by the President of the Republic, notwithstanding the fact that Such Regulations are, because of their nature, primary, and not subsidiary, legislation Therefore, the aforesaid section 5 of the sub judice Law, and, consequently, also the new section 76, are repugnant to, and inconsistent With, Article 61 of the Constitution.
(4) In view of the foregoing the provisions, of sections 2, 4 and 5 of the sub judice Law, and, consequently, also, the, aforesaid provisions of the new sections 5A and 76, are unconstitutional as repugnant to, and inconsistent with, Article 179 of the Constitution, too.
(5) Since the unconstitutional provisions of the new sections 5A and 76 of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969-1985, which were enacted by means of sections 2 and. 4 of the sub judice Law, cannot be separated from the remaining provisions of the said new sections 5A and 76, these sections as a whole are, when viewed as integral legislative provisions, repugnant to, and inconsistent, with Article 61 of the Constitution and, therefore, they are unconstitutional as repugnant to, and inconsistent with, Article 179 of the Constitution, too.
(6) In accordance with Article 140.3 of the Constitution, as it has been interpreted in the Supplementary Reasons for the Opinion of the majority of the Members of the Supreme Court in Reference No. 1/85, only sections 2, 4 and 5 of the sub judice Law and consequently, also the new sections 5A and 76 of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969-1985, cannot be promulgated by the President of the Republic by publication in the official Gazette of the Republic. There are not affected, however, sections 1, 3 and 6 of the sub judice Law in respect of which there has not been sought by the President of the Republic the Opinion of the Supreme Court by means of the present Reference.
The present Opinion is notified, in. accordance with Article 140.2 of the Constitution, to the President of the Republic and to the House of Representatives.
("A LAW TO AMEND THE PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SERVICE LAWS, 1969 TO 1985 LAWS Nos. 1.0 of 1969, 67 of 1978, 53 of 1979 and 4 of 1985.
The House of Representatives enacts as follows:
1. This Law may be cited as the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Law, 1985 and shall be read as one with the Public Educational Service Laws, 1969 to 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Law"), and the principal Law and this Law may together be cited as the Public Educational Service Laws, 1969 to (No. 2)19.85.
2. Section 4 of the Principal Law is hereby amended as follows:
(a) By adding in sub-section 2 thereof immediately after the words "would be prescribed in the appointment" (fifth line), the following new paragraph:-
"Irrespective of the provisions of any other law, the appointment of the Chairman and the members of the Committee are to be subject to the approval of the House of Representatives to be given by a decision of the House taken by a simple majority. If their appointment is not approved by the House of Representatives, the President of the Republic shall be bound to submit to the House of Representatives for approval a new composition of the Committee"; and
(b) By adding in sub-section 2 thereof immediately after the words "The President of the Republic may" (first line) the words "with the approval of the House of Representatives".
3. Section 5 of the principal Law is hereby amended by deleting subsection (2) thereof.
4. The principal Law is hereby amended by the adding immediately after section 5 there- of the following new section:.-
5A (1) There shall be established a Revisional Committee for the Educational Service (hereinafter to be cited as "the Revisional Committee") with power and duty to review the decisions of the Educational Service Committee.
(2) The Revisional Committee shall consist of a Chairman, learned in the law and Po other members, having special knowledge and, experience in educational matters, appointed by the President of the Republic in accordance with the procedure and provisions of section 4 of this Law, which shall be applied mutatis mutandis.
(3) The Chairman and the members of the Revisional Committee shall hold office for three years.
(4) The President of the Republic may, with the approval of the House of Representatives, at any time terminate the appointment of any member of the Revisional Committee.
(5) Any member of the Revisional Committee may at any time, resign from his Office by rendering his resignation in writing to the President of the Republic.
(6) In case of any vacancy, for whatever reason, the President f the Republic shall, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2, proceed to the appointment of a new member, for the remaining term of office of the Revisional Committee.
(7) The validity of any act or work done by the Revisional Committee shall not be affected by reason of any vacancy, provided that the remaining members of the Committee shall not be less than two.
(8) There may be paid to the Chairman and the other members of the Revisional Committee such allowances for expenses, as the Council of Ministers may from tithe o time determine.
(9) The Chairman shall convene and preside the meetings of the Revisional Committee and shall sign the minutes thereof.
(10) The Chairman shall prepare the Order of the day of each meeting and shall see that it is communicated to the other members at least two days before the date fixed for the meeting. In case of urgency the order of the day may be communicated to the members immediately before the meeting.
(11) It is the duty of the Chairman to see that each decision of the Revisional Committee shall be duly executed.
(12) A quorum shall consist of the Chairman and one member.
(13) The decisions of the Revisional Committee shall be taken by majority.
(14) The Revisional Committee may regulate the manner in which its business shall be conducted the procedure for reviewing the decisions of the Educational Service Committee and the procedure of its internal management.
(15) The Revisional Committee shall without undue delay review, a decision of the Educational Service Committee upon a written application by an interested Educational Officer submitted within a period of twenty days as from the communication to such Officer of the decision of the Educational Service Committee and, after hearing such interested Officer or giving to him the opportunity to submit his views, shall give its decision on the matter.
(16) The Revisional Committee may take one of the following decisions:
(a) To affirm the decision impugned.
(b) To annul the decision impugned.
(c) To amend the decision impugned.
(d) To issue a new decision in substitution of the decision impugned.
(e) To refer the case to the Educational Service Committee directing it to take a specific action.
(17) The Revisional Committee may, in reaching any of the decisions referred to in sub sections (d) and (e) of sub-section 16, take into consideration facts subsequent to the issue of the decision of the Educational Service Committee".
5. Section 76 of the Principal Law is hereby repealed and substituted by the following new section:-
(76) - (1) The Council of Ministers, shall forthwith and in any case within 3 months from the date of the coming into force of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No.2) Law, 1985, make regulations, which shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic providing for the enforcement of this Law, and regulating generally every matter concerning the Committee, the Revisional Committee the Educational Service and the Educational Officers.
Provided that Regulations made in accordance with this section shall be placed before the House of Representatives. If within 30 days from the day when such regulations shall have been placed as aforesaid before the House of Representatives, the House of Representatives does not by a decision amend or annul in whole or in part such regulations, such regulations shall, immediately after the expiration of the period aforesaid, be published in the Official Gazette Of the Republic and shall come into force, as from such publication In case of amendment of such, regulations in whole or in part by the House of Representatives, such, regulations shall be published as amended in, the Official Gazette of the Republic and shall come into force from such publication:
Provided further that in case the Council o Ministers does not make and place before the House of Representatives the Regulations aforesaid within the period prescribed in this sub section, the House of Representatives shall proceed and make the said Regulations, in which case such regulations shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, as they shall have been approved by decision of the House of Representatives.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section
(3) until the said regulations are made or any matter is otherwise regulated by virtue of this Law, any regulations or administrative acts and the administrative instructions which are embodied in circulars or otherwise and the existing practice regarding the Educational Service and the Educational Officers shall continue to be in force to the extent they do not contradict the provisions of this Law.
(3) No promotion of any Educational Officers shall be effected except until the making and the approval of the Regulations as provided in this section providing for specific and objective criteria for the promotion of Educational Officers.
6. Irrespective of the provisions of the principal Law, the term of service of the Chairman and the members of the Committee, shall expire on the 31st December 1985, unless, in the meantime, a new appointment shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No.2) Law, 1985").
PIKIS J.: The constitutionality of certain provisions of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Law, 1985, those of sections 2, 4 and 5 is the subject of the present reference. The Supreme Court is asked to give its opinion whether the aforesaid provisions of the Law are repugnant to or inconsistent with one or more provisions of the Constitution or the principle of separation of powers. The provisions of the Law under consideration, hereinafter referred to as "the Law" have three separate but related objects (a) The change of the procedure for the appointment of members of the Public Educational Service Committee so that the appointment of Presidential nominees will be subject to approval by the House of Representatives. (b) The creation, of a Revisional Committee with competence to review, by way of hierarchical appeal, decisions of the Educational Service Committee. The Presidential nominations for appointment of members of this Committee will as in the case of the Educational Service Committee be subject to the approval of the House.(c) Delegation of power to the Council of Ministers to make regulations for the effective functioning of the two committees and related matters. In the event of failure or omission on the part of the Council to exercise this power its exercise may be assumed by the House of Representatives who are thereby authorized to promulgate the Regulations.
The objections of the President of the Republic to the constitutionality of the Law go, Mr. Loucaides explained to the procedure adopted for the composition of the two committees, in particular the involvement of the House in the choice of their members; the act of appointment is an administrative measure outside the sphere of jurisdiction of the legislative body. The standpoint of the President in connection with the third objection is that the legislative powers of the House of Representatives are confined to the enactment of primary legislation; they cannot delegate to themselves power to make secondary legislation. Consequently assumption of the rule making power conferred on the Council of Ministers is under any circumstances out side their legitimate sphere of action.
On behalf of the House of Representatives Mr. Markides supported the law as the offspring of a legitimate exercise of legislative powers; in any event the law is supportable by the doctrine of necessity and the gap that had to be filled by the dissolution of the Greek Communal Chamber the constitutional organ charged, inter alia, with the organization of the education of the Greek population of the country. In accordance with the interpretation of Article 61 of the Constitution, favoured by Mr. Markides, unlimited legislative power vests in the House entitling it to regulate by law any subject independently of its intrinsic nature. Notwithstanding that appointments to administrative organ constitute of their nature an administrative act Mr. Markides submitted such provision does not offend any Article of the Constitution and does not defy the principle of separation of power that underlay the structure of the Constitution of Cyprus. This submission has been answered in my judgment in Reference 3/85. The conclusions to which I arrived in the above reference are reinforced by the decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Reference 1/84. The Constitution of Cyprus provides for a strict separation between the jurisdiction of legislative and executive, branch of the State and prohibits the exercise of competence by anyone of the two outside its constitutional domain.
In the United States the consent and advice of the legislature required for the appointment of senior State officials is expressly authorized by the Constitution Beyond this authorization it is impermissible for the legislature in the United States too to assume competence in relation to appointments to administrative bodies. Depending on the nature of the office an appointment constitutes an executive or administrative act wholly outside the power of the legislature.
Alternatively counsel for the House sought justification for the constitutionality of the law in the doctrine of necessity that allows, depending On the nature and immediacy of the necessity, the establishment of substitute mechanism in order to render operational constitutional institutions that have come to a standstill. This submission finds no support in the objects or content of the law the constitutionality of which is under examination. As the title of the law denotes it is solely intended to amend existing legislation notably the Public Educational Service Law, 1969, (10/69).The law exclusively purports to alter the system of appointments of members of the Educational Service Committee and establish a new administrative body to take cognizance of hierarchical appeals. Manifestly legislative competence is bestowed on the House outside the legislative powers conferred by Article 61 that limits its jurisdiction to matters not "expressly reserved to the Communal Chamber under this Constitution". The only basis for the exercise of legislative power in relation to matters affecting the Communal Chamber derives from section 3(2) of the Competence of the Greek Communal Chamber (Transfer of Exercise) and Ministry of Education Law, 1965, (12/65) that transfered in the name of the law of necessity the legislative jurisdiction of the Greek Communal chamber to the House of Representatives. Only legislative power is conferred on the House of Representatives under section 3(2); the administrative competence of the Greek Communal Chamber is assigned to the Ministry of Education set up under Law 12/65. The allocation of the powers of the Greek Communal Chamber effected by Law 12/65 is not an issue in these proceedings nor the need that led to its enactment. And the House of Representatives did not invoke the law of necessity for the enactment of the law the constitutionality of which is examined in these proceedings. The Educational Service Committee constitutes an administrative organ for the, promotion of the functions assigned to the Ministry of Education within the framework of which it operates as section 4(1) of Law 12/65 expressly provides. Competence to appoint members of them Committee is wholly outside the legislative power vested in the House of Representatives by section 3(2) of Law 12/65. The Educational Service Committee is a body set up to substitute for the Communal Chamber nor was the Committee entrusted with the exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution to the Greek Communal Chamber under Part of the Constitution. We are not, therefore, required to decide whether the House of Representatives as the arbiters of the law of necessity and the body responsible for improvising means to cope with it would be justified to establish a new body to replace the Communal Chamber nor are we concerned to decide whether after the lapse of 20 years there exist reasons for the reallocation of the powers assigned to the House of Representatives and the Ministry of Education by Law 12/65.
The legislative power of the House of Representatives is limited to the enactment of primary legislation and the same applies to its legislative powers deriving under section 3(2) of Law 12/65. The making of any order or regulation for the carrying into effect of any law as may be provided in such law is in accordance with Article 54 of the Constitution a competence assigned to the Council of Ministers. That we are concerned with secondary or subsidiary legislation is evident from the fact that power to make such regulations is in the first place entrusted to the Council of Ministers. The jurisdiction of the House of Representatives is limited by the Constitution to the enactment of primary laws and the taking of decisions as expressly provided in the Constitution. With regard both to the enactment of laws and the taking of decisions the House can only validly exercise its powers by complying with the procedure laid down in Articles 73 and 78 of the Constitution providing for a positive vote in favour of the law or decision. Moreover the Constitution provides for promulgation of laws and decisions of the House by Article 52 by publication in the official Gazette, a prerequisite for their coming into force. The Constitution confers no regulatory powers to the House outside the ambit of their legislative competence of course if the regulations have a legislative content, that is, they contain rules of law they may become the subject of primary legislation under Article 61. Ordinarily Rules and Regulations regulate matters incidental to the enforcement of the law. Unless the law provides otherwise such regulatory jurisdiction vests under Article 54(g) in the Council of Ministers that is the basic organ for the exercise of executive power; no doubt because of the nexus between regulatory jurisdiction on the one hand and the enforcement of laws the province of the Executive under the Constitution, on the other.
I conclude that the provisions of sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Public Educational Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Law, 1985, are separately and in their entirety unconstitutional because-
First in relation to appointments of members of the Educational Service Committee and the Revisional Committee, they provide for the exercise of administrative jurisdiction by the House of Representatives a competence vested by the Constitution in the Executive, and
Secondly, they confer a rule-making jurisdiction to the House of Representatives, to regulate matters incidental to the enforcement of the law outside the sphere of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives as defined in Part IV of the Constitution.
Specifically the law (the impugned provisions) is repugnant to and inconsistent with the provisions of (1) Article 61 of the Constitution that limit the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives to the exercise of legislative competence; (2) Article 54 of the Constitution that vests executive powers in the Council of Ministers; (3) Article 87 of the Constitution as applied by the law of necessity and given effect to by Law 12/65 that limits the jurisdiction of the House in the exercise of legislative competence, and (4) Article 179 of the Constitution that lays down that the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus is the supreme law.
Also it defies the separation of State powers, a constituent element of the constitutional structure of the State of Cyprus.
From the material placed before the Court, particularly the report of the Committee of the House of Representatives, it emerges that one of the reasons that led to the enactment of the law was the great number of recourses against decisions of the Educational Service Committee in conjunction with the annulment by the Court of many decisions of the Committee. The case-law of the Supreme Court suggests that both conclusions are correct and well founded. This reality must, independently of the outcome of this reference, be taken seriously into account by the authorities; considering that the achievement of educational goals and the faith of educational officers in the mission of the educational authorities depends the well functioning of the Educational Committee especially the fairness exhibited in the promotions made.
KOURRIS J.: I agree with the decision of Justice Pikis and the reasoning behind it and for the same reasons I am of the opinion that the sub judice law is repugnant to and inconsistent with the Constitution and the principle of Separation of State Powers.
The appointment of the members of Administrative organs such as the Educational Service Committee and the Review Committee created by the law, fall within the exclusive competence of the Executive Branch of the State, wholly outside the sphere of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives.
Opinion as above.