PUTRAJAYA, Jan 21 ― The Federal Court has a duty to resolve constitutional issues raised in the “Allah” case as there is no other legal avenue to clarify such matters, the Catholic Church’s lawyer said today.
Datuk Cyrus Das, the lawyer for the Catholic Church, pointed out that a number of questions regarding the Federal Constitution — including the protection of non-Muslims’ religious freedom — was not considered by the Federal Court when it rejected the Church’s appeal in June 2013.
“If the apex court is not prepared to take on these questions and answer it, where else are we going to go to?” Cyrus asked the Federal Court today.
“The apex court must always be ready to answer. You can’t avoid that,” he added.
Cyrus was presenting his arguments before a five-man bench at the Federal Court today that is reviewing the apex court’s decision last year not to hear the Catholic Church’s appeal on the “Allah” case.
The other judges on the panel chaired by Tan Sri Abdull Hamid Embong are Tan Sri Ahmad Haji Maarop, Tan Sri Hasan Lah, Datuk Ramly Haji Ali, and Datuk Azahar Mohamed.
The legal dispute has been in the courts for the last five years after the Home Ministry banned the publication of the word “Allah” in the Catholic Church’s weekly paper Herald’s Bahasa Malaysia section in 2007.
Cyrus said among the constitutional questions not answered by the Federal Court was on the interpretation of the Constitution’s Article 3(1) — which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation while other religions “may be practiced in peace and harmony”.
“Is it a guarantee to minorities of religion or is it a guarantee ‘to protect the integrity and sanctity of official faith’?” he asked, quoting the Court of Appeal’s controversial interpretation of the provision as intending to protect Islam from purported threats from the minority non-Muslims.
Cyrus said the previous Federal Court panel was also asked to consider Article 3(4)’s protective role and impact on Article 3(1) and Article 11 — with the latter guaranteeing religious freedom.
He also argued that the previous panel had not considered the “public importance” of the Herald case, pointing to the unprecedented appointment of seven judges and the split 4-3 decision.
But Sulaiman Abdullah, one of the lawyers acting for the Terengganu Islamic Religious Council who is a party to the case, urged the court to “let the matter lie” instead of allowing a review which he claimed would “re-open old wounds” and cause “public unrest”.
He also insisted that the Federal Court is “not obliged” to answer all the questions directed to them, arguing that they only needed to deal with questions that dealt with the core issue of whether the Home Minister had exceeded his statutory powers by imposing the “Allah” ban on Herald.
In the long trek to today’s review hearing, the Catholic Church first tasted victory when it won its case in a landmark High Court ruling in 2009. But when the matter was later brought before the Court of Appeal, the ruling was overturned.
The church then filed for leave to appeal the appellate court’s decision, but this was rejected in a narrow 4-3 decision at the Federal Court on June 23 last year.
The Catholic Church’s lawyers applied last September for a rare review of the Federal Court’s refusal to hear its appeal, arguing that there was “procedural unfairness” and that it had decided on legal issues not raised by any of the parties involved in the case.
Today is the final opportunity the Catholic Church has in getting the Federal Court to hear its appeal. Judges said they will deliver their decision at 3pm after a short break.
There was light police presence outside the Federal Court today and a small part of the entrance was cordoned off, but no protesters were spotted.
