Ruling [QUESTION] Deputy Speaker Elligibility

[Chanku]

Under the 12th Mandate of Lazarus, Article I Section 13 establishes the requirements to be Assembly Speaker, the section reads as follows:

(13) The Assembly Speaker will serve until resignation, removal from office by the Assembly or Delegate, or automatic removal from office. The Assembly Speaker may not serve or stand for an election for any other office but Councillor on the Council on Lazarene Security, or Deputy Minister.

However, the Assembly Procedure Act does not specify any requirements for Deputy speaker beyond being appointed by the Speaker. As such I present the following questions:

1. Do Deputy Speakers have the same requirements to be in office as the Assembly Speaker?
2. If the Deputy Speaker does not, then would the result be different in the event that the Assembly Speaker is unable or unwilling to perform their duties such that the Deputy Speaker is the functionally the Speaker.

 

[Wang Yao]

The Court of Lazarus has unanimously agreed on the following rulings, authored by myself:

First question ruling: "Do Deputy Speakers have the same requirements to be in office as the Assembly Speaker?"

The Court considers that the law does not include any implication of shared requirements for the office of Deputy Speaker with the one of Assembly Speaker, and reminds that Section III on Deputies Speakers of the Assembly Procedure Act as well as Article I, Section 14 of the Twelfth Mandate set specific expectations and requirements for Deputy Speakers unrelated to the ones prepared for the Assembly Speaker. As such, the Court rules that Deputy Speakers are not subject to the same requirements as the Assembly Speaker since nothing in the law currently links their status and that requirements specific to the office of Deputy Speaker are separately detailed in the law. If this situation is not in accord with the intends of the Assembly, the Court recommends the Assembly to amend the Assembly Procedure Act as the Twelfth Mandate allows for the Assembly to "provide for the appointment and removal of deputies to the Assembly Speaker by law or through its procedural rules" (Article I, Section 14). In the current state of the law, requirements for eligibility and ways of removal of Deputy Speakers are clearly defined by the Assembly Procedure Act in its third Section.

Second question ruling: "If the Deputy Speaker does not, then would the result be different in the event that the Assembly Speaker is unable or unwilling to perform their duties such that the Deputy Speaker is functionally the Speaker?"

Section 3.3 of the Assembly Procedure Act mentions that "Any powers or responsibilities assigned to the Assembly Speaker [...], unless explicitly directed otherwise, may be delegated by the Assembly Speaker to their deputy or deputies" with the only exception of the ability to appoint or dismiss other Deputy Speakers. Because of this, and considering that the possibility of a Deputy Speaker being perceived as the de facto Assembly Speaker is more of a matter of political appreciation rather than an element that would change the legal status of the concerned Deputy Speaker, the Court rules that the situation of an Assembly Speaker lacking to their duties does not apply the requirements for office of the Assembly Speaker onto its Deputies. If an Assembly Speaker is inactive or lacking to their duties and that the Assembly is unsatisfied by the actions of a Deputy Speaker, the Court recommends the use of methods permitted by the Twelfth Mandate, aka "resignation, removal from office by the Assembly or Delegate, or automatic removal from office", in order for a new Assembly Speaker to organize the work of their Deputies as they consider it should be.