Tuesday, March 06, 2007

summary judgment is no longer appealable?

In response to the above discussion, I'm very much intrigue to state
the discussion put forward by Aristotle on defining the terms
'monarchy', 'aristocracy',' and 'polity' and their perverted terms.

The Constitution, being the supreme law of the Federation would
therefore fit best to the definition of 'polity' as defined by
Aristotle as 'polity' means the type of state which rests upon a
constitution allowing the rule of the masses under the law and a
system of justice which is enshrined in that constitution.

With reference to the question that hovers around the issue of summary
judgment which is no longer appealable would in its definite term go
beyond the crux and guarantee of the Constitution itself.

Indeed the system of law serves the need and guarantee one's
protection and interest. As the system of law is derived from the need
and interest of the general masses, therefore, it is the duty of the
law to accommodate the interests and needs of its subject. The
relationship between the system of law and its subject is so
intertwined that it is in no way to operate outside the established

Having said the above, I believe that to decide on the question of
justice, it can never be done summarily. If a judgment has been given
summarily in the light of the general rule of law that permits such
practice, it does not necessarily mean that the door for further
recourse for law is forever closed for the unhappy party to appeal and
have his case heard by a higher court.

By being the subject of the system of law, one's right to resort to
legal medium is therefore unconditional. Therefore, it is derivative
that right to appeal to a higher court of law is also guaranteed as a
matter of fundamental right embedded in the fundamental rules of
natural justice.

To enlighten the above notion, I'd like to refer to the speech of Lord

" In a constitution founded on the Westminster model particularly in
that part of it that purports to assure to all individual citizens the
continued enjoyment of fundamental liberties or rights, references to
"law" in such context as "in accordance with law", "equality before
the law" and the like, in their Lordships view, refer to a system of
law which incorporates those fundamental rules of natural justice that
formed part and parcel of the Common Law of England that was in
operation in Singapore at the commencement of the Constitution. It
would have been taken for granted by the makers of The Constitution
that the law to which the citizens could have recourse for with
protection of fundamental liberties assured to them by the
Constitution would be a system of law that did not flout those
fundamental rules".

Based on the above awakening speech by Lord Diplock, it clearly
demonstrates the very objective of the Constitution in holding the
trust of the people who pledge their confidence in the system of law.
Again, I would like to reiterate my view that the very notion of law
itself means that the law acts as a medium to ensure that a certain
level of standard is achieved in accommodating the definite rights and
interests of the people. Therefore, I believe that the law itself
being a medium of determining what is just, must not confine itself to
a one-way traffic that only stops at a dead end when the law in
question is applied in its generality. This is in line with the notion
put forward by Aristotle in his discussion on corrective justice that
suggests its concern with the restoration of a disturbed equilibrium.
Therefore, the duty to correct or remedy the disturbed equilibrium is
vested on the judges to investigate the very nature of the case and to
apply a certain standard of the justice system as guaranteed by our
Constitution as to restore what is right in its own original place. As
justice is applied in its universal sense, therefore, it should not
fetter or impede one's right just because the law exits in its general

When the law is provided for in its general rule, it is the duty of
the courts to apply the principle of justice to matters which fall
outside the ambit of its generality. Then only, justice is to be said
to have been realized.


No comments: