the only type of court(s) required by the constitution is/are federal courts.
the only type of court(s) required by the constitution is/are federal courts.
the only type of court(s) required by the constitution is/are?
federal courts
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction – that is, its power to hear cases for the first time – the high court carries out two types of judicial review: judicial review of legislation, and judicial review of administrative acts. regarding the former, article 4 of the constitution states: "this constitution is the supreme law of the republic of singapore and any law enacted by the legislature after the commencement of this constitution which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void." in "tan eng hong v. attorney-general" (2012), the court of appeal held that although the article only refers to laws enacted after the constitution's commencement on 9 august 1965, laws which pre-date the constitution can also be invalidated by the court. in addition, article 162 provides that ordinary laws that were in force prior to the constitution coming into force on 9 august 1965 continue to apply after the constitution's commencement but must be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the constitution. thus, the constitution reflects the principle established in the landmark decision of the supreme court of the united states, "marbury v. madison" (1803): since it is the role of the courts to interpret the law, they have power to decide whether ordinary laws are inconsistent with the constitution and, if so, to declare such laws to be void. in the 1994 case "chan hiang leng colin v. public prosecutor" the high court adopted a similar stance, and also affirmed that declaring void administrative actions and decisions that infringe the constitution is part of its responsibility:
constitution of singapore
on november 14, 2013, constitutional court in a 13–0 statement sent to the state election commission stated that there is no constitutional obstacle to hold a 2013 referendum on defining marriage as a union between men and a woman, in the same time pointing out that the referendum revealed numerous problems in the "referendum law" and opened a number of legal questions that required answers. nevertheless, the court stressed that decision on the referendum was passed by a majority of 104 mps and that since it was made with more votes than the majority needed to even change the constitution itself, the referendum should be held. in addition, the court asked croatian parliament to "provide a stable regulatory framework of the referendum process that meets the standards of a democratic society as soon as possible". the court also decided that "any amendments to the constitution which would define marriage as being union between a man and a woman should not have any effect on the further development of the legal framework of the institution of same-sex unions in accordance with the constitutional requirement that everyone in croatia has the right to be respected and right of legal protection of their personal and family life and human dignity". the court pointed out that it had never received any request or proposal to review the constitutionality of the provisions of the "family law" that regulated marriage as a union between a man and woman, or provisions of the "law on same-sex unions". the court therefore considered that the referendum on the definition of marriage is not a referendum on the right to respect for family life, because it is constitutionally guaranteed to all persons, regardless of sex and gender, and is under the direct protection of both, the constitutional court itself and the european court of human rights. in conclusion, the court warned that "incorporation of legal institutes in the constitution shouldn't become a systemic phenomenon" and that exceptional individual cases must be justified by being connected, for example, with deep-rooted social and cultural characteristics of the society.
constitutional court of croatia