The Suarah Petroleum Group (SPG) had stated this position in an advertorial published in The Borneo Post recently.
Although agreeing that any law inconsistent with the federal Constitution is void, lawyer Aidil Khalid counters the opinion by SPG that any act failing to undergo proper procedures by saying that this must be strictly proved by way of proper evidence.
A recent advertorial paid by SPG that was published in The Borneo Post stated that act as invalid because it apparently breaches not only the 1963 Malaysia Agreement but also the Constitution.
Citing Article 2 (b) (concerning the formulation of boundary altering laws) of the Constitution, SPG contends that the Act was passed by Parliament without the consent of the Sarawak legislative assembly.
Boundaries of a particular state include territorial waters, continental shelves, seabed, minerals, subsoil and other resources within the state.
“Actually, this (annulling of the act) can only be done by bringing the challenge to court, because ultimately, the court is the supreme arbiter as to what is right or wrong vis-a-vis the Constitution,” Aidil told The Mole.
He refers to Article 4 (3) which spells out that the validity of any law made by Parliament shall not be questioned on the ground that it makes provisions with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the legislature of the state has no power to make laws, except in proceedings for a declaration that the law is invalid on that ground.
This mean, as Aidil puts it, the mere fact that some of the provisions in the Act may not be consistent with the Constitution does not by itself render the Act invalid.
Instead, the law remains valid, until and unless a challenge is taken up to a court and the court makes a declaration that it is invalid. Till then, the law remains binding.
Source: The Mole, November 25th, 2016