Riordan v. An Taoiseach (No.2)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, an experienced litigant, applied to restrain the holding of a Referendum scheduled for a forthcoming Friday. The Referendum concerns a Bill proposing the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill was introduced into the legislature on 21st April 1998, passed by both Houses on 22nd April 1998, and submitted for popular decision in accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution and the Referendum Act, 1998. The Plaintiff conceded that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Bill itself, in line with established Supreme Court precedent. The Plaintiff’s complaint focused on an alleged procedural violation of Article 46 by the Respondents, rather than the substance of the Bill. The court considered the relevant constitutional provisions and the content of the Bill, particularly a schedule provision allowing constitutional amendment contingent on governmental declaration pursuant to a multi-party Agreement.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the procedure adopted for submitting the Nineteenth Amendment Bill to a Referendum under Article 46 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the procedure followed by the Respondents complies with the requirements of Article 46 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the proposed amendment’s conditional provision contravenes Article 46 by allowing amendment without direct Referendum approval.
4. Whether the Plaintiff’s ancillary claim concerning the multi-party Agreement’s provisions on prisoner release and presidential powers has merit.
5. Whether the Plaintiff’s delay in seeking judicial review affects the admissibility of the application.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that although the Court cannot review the substance of the Bill, it must intervene to prevent a procedural violation of Article 46 by the Respondents.
• The Plaintiff contended that the provision in the Bill allowing constitutional amendment upon a government declaration, without a fresh Referendum, violates Article 46.
• An ancillary argument was made that the multi-party Agreement could not be validly entered into due to issues concerning prisoner release provisions and the President’s commutation powers.
• The Plaintiff implicitly challenged the timing of the application but did not provide explanation for the delay in seeking judicial review.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging the Plaintiff’s concession that it cannot review the constitutionality of the Bill itself, relying on the binding precedent from Finn v. The Attorney General. The Court then examined Article 46 of the Constitution, which sets out the procedure for constitutional amendments by Referendum, noting the Bill’s compliance with these procedural requirements. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s complaint necessarily involved an impermissible review of the Bill’s merits, which is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined that the procedural steps prescribed by Article 46 had been followed correctly, and no procedural defect existed.

The Court considered the conditional amendment provision in the Bill, which allows amendment upon a government declaration following the multi-party Agreement, and concluded that this did not contravene the letter or spirit of Article 46, as the ultimate decision rests with the people via Referendum. The Court also rejected the Plaintiff’s ancillary argument regarding the multi-party Agreement and prisoner release provisions as lacking merit.

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of delay, noting that the Plaintiff waited nearly a month after the Bill’s passage to seek judicial review without explanation. Given the importance and solemnity of constitutional amendment procedures, the Court held that challenges must be brought promptly to allow adequate institutional consideration. The delay alone justified dismissal of the application, which was also dismissed on its merits.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED THE RELIEF SOUGHT and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application to restrain the Referendum. The decision means that the Referendum on the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution will proceed as scheduled. The Court affirmed the limited role of judicial review in constitutional amendment procedures, emphasizing respect for the legislative process and the sovereign role of the people in approving constitutional changes. No new precedent was established; rather, the Court applied established principles to uphold procedural compliance and reject untimely judicial interference.