Israel’s High Court of Justice is set to hear arguments Tuesday morning in a closely watched legal challenge to the controversial “Arrest Law,” while the government has taken the extraordinary step of refusing to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the outcome has already been predetermined.

An expanded panel of Supreme Court justices will hear petitions seeking to overturn the temporary law, which was championed by Shas chairman Aryeh Deri and is designed to prevent the arrest of bnei yeshiva who have been designated as military draft evaders for a period of approximately six months.

Supporters of the legislation say the measure was intended to provide temporary protection for Torah students while lawmakers work toward a broader resolution of Israel’s long-running dispute over military conscription for the Chareidi community. The law is meant to remain in effect until a new government is formed and addresses the draft issue through permanent legislation.

In an unusual move, however, the Israeli government will not be represented during Tuesday’s hearing. The decision followed a position advanced by Deri, who argued that there is no point defending the law because the High Court has already made up its mind to strike it down. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an interim order freezing the law before it had even been officially published in Israel’s legal registry or allowed to take effect.

Speaking in an interview with Kikar HaShabbat, Deri defended the government’s boycott of the proceedings.

“We have no trust in the Supreme Court. We already know the outcome in advance. We must not be part of this game, to create the impression that justice is being done. ‘Here, you have a defense, now present your arguments.’ We must not be partners in this show.”

Deri went on to argue that the hearing would amount to little more than a public exercise whose conclusion had already been decided.

“It will be a public discussion, except that the result is already known in advance,” he said. “We need to tell them: ‘We do not recognize your authority. We already know the outcome of this matter.'”

The Shas leader also sharply criticized the interim injunction issued by the court last week, questioning why the justices intervened before the legislation had even become law.

“Someone goes and issues interim orders before the law has even been published in the official registry, before it has even taken effect… What would have happened, for Heaven’s sake, if for one week they didn’t make arrests? Would that have been irreversible? Is that what interim orders are for? On a law that the Knesset passed and worked on for many months and many weeks? It’s obvious—you can already see the outcome in advance. That’s why we must not play this game.”

Meanwhile, legal advisers to both the Knesset and the government have urged the High Court to invalidate the legislation, arguing that it was enacted through a flawed legislative process and violates Israel’s Basic Laws.

The Knesset’s legal counsel joined Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara in contending that the coalition improperly relied on the parliamentary doctrine of “continuity,” a procedural mechanism that allows pending legislation from a previous Knesset to be revived instead of beginning the legislative process from scratch.

According to the Knesset’s legal advisers, lawmakers improperly applied the continuity procedure to a bill that originally addressed an entirely different subject.

“The ‘pipeline’ of continuity that was supposed to connect the original bill with the final law was severed,” the Knesset’s legal opinion stated in its submission to the High Court, adding that the flaw “goes to the root of the legislative process.”

The Knesset’s attorneys further concluded that the temporary measure legally constituted a “new subject,” meaning its passage failed to comply with Knesset rules and, consequently, with Section 19 of Israel’s Basic Law: The Knesset. The opinion was considered especially unusual because the Knesset’s legal advisers generally defend legislation passed by lawmakers rather than argue against its validity.

Attorney General Baharav-Miara also urged the High Court to strike down the law, arguing that it violates the principle of equality and conflicts with Israel’s national security needs.

{Matzav.com}