The Uppermost Cort has ruled on the case taken by Senator Luc da Schir in September 2015, which challenged the constitutionality of King John’s refusal to proclaim an amendment to the Organic Law, 47RZ28.
The amendment received the required double majorities in the Ziu and was approved by referendum and would have made the governor of one province ineligible to be appointed as Cunstaval, or royal representative in another. The King disagreed with the restriction on his discretion in the matter and as a “test case” utilised a hitherto little-understood provision of the Organic Law which stated that the King “may” proclaim changes to the constitution, thus giving them formal force of law. In refusing to proclaim the amendment in this fashion the King sparked what has become known as the Proclamation Crisis
In a majority decision Justices dal Nordselvă and Cjantscheir (with Justice Edwards dissenting) found that “the Organic Law puts no obligation on the King to proclaim the amendment, he has the discretion to do so or not to do so”. Reasoning that as the King is excluded from the Organic Law amendment process up to the point at which the Bill is presented for proclamation, it would be “incompatible with the Organic Law nor is in the spirit of the Organic Law” to remove the prerogative of the King at this point.
An Organic Law amendement passed by the Ziu in September that is known as the 3/4 Majority Amendment will if passed by referendum and proclaimed by the King alter the language of the Organic Law, allowing the King to issue a suspensive veto on constitutional changes unless overridden by a qualified majority of the Ziu.