KOTA KINABALU: Lawyer, teacher seek judicial review of PPSMI decision after previous application struck out.
A local lawyer and a school teacher, whose application for leave for judicial review for retaining the teaching and learning of science and mathematics in English (PPSMI) was struck out by the High Court here last week, filed another application yesterday.
Instead of appealing against the High Court’s decision, lawyer Marcel Jude Joseph and teacher Evelyn June Charlie filed a fresh application for judicial review at the High Court’s registry naming the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Education and the Malaysian government as first, second and third respondents respectively.
They are seeking an order of certiorari in so far as the State of Sabah is concerned to quash the respondents’ decision to abolish the PPSMI, and to continue implementation of PPSMI.
They are also seeking a further declaration that the decision by the respondents to abolish the PPSMI is ultra vires and unlawful.
The new application will be heard by High Court judge Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah on April 2, this year.
On February 17, High Court judge Justice Dato’ Abdul Rahman Sebili struck out the applicants’ previous application for leave for judicial review against the decision of Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education to abolish the PPSMI after ruling that the application was made out of time because the said decision was made by the Federal Cabinet in 2009.
The judge pointed out that there was a delay of two years, three months and two days and therefore it did not satisfy the 40-day rule stipulated under the Rules of the High Court.
Thus, the judge held that the said application should fail on the basis it is time barred.
The court also held that the decision to abolish the PPSMI was a policy decision undertaken by the cabinet based on the exercise of the function by the respondent as the minister.
As such, Sebli held the applicants had no legal right to compel the respondent to continue with the implementation of the PPSMI in the State of Sabah.
Furthermore, the court held that the decision to discontinue the PPSMI was a political one that was not justifiable in a court of law.
In their affidavit in support, they said that the judge made his findings based on the submission of the Federal Attorney General acting for the respondents that the decision to abolish the PPSMI was made by the cabinet on July 8, 2009.
However, they claimed that no evidence was adduced or produced by the Federal Attorney General to prove that the cabinet’s decision was made on that date.
Prior to Friday, both applicants said that they had no knowledge of the Cabinet decision and only knew of it at the ruling on Friday.
“Therefore, as a result of the judge finding of fact and it being the first time the applicants heard about the cabinet decision on July 8, 2009, this application is therefore within time,” the applicants claimed.
However they stated that in the event that the court finds that the application is not made within time, then they pray for the court to extend the time until February 20 on grounds that this was the first time that the applicants heard of the date of the cabinet decision and it involves public interest.
Furthermore, they claimed that there was no intention on the part of the applicants to delay the matter and that the application deals with a serious matter, namely whether the decision to abolish the PPSMI in respect of Sabah was unconstitutional.