Morris v. Minister for the Environment and Local Government.

The applicants are seeking a declaration that the 25th Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001 conflicts with Article 46 of the Constitution because it contained another proposal - a proposed Act of the Oireachtas. They also want an order prohibiting the Minister for the Environment and Local Government from setting a polling day for holding a referendum in respect of the Bill, challenging the mechanism being used to effect this amendment and the manner in which it was proposed to be done. The students argued that, except in the case of proposed repeals, Article 46.1 of the Constitution required the proposed variation or addition to the Constitution to be contained in the body or text of the Constitution itself, and not to have a separate existence in the form of an Act of the Oireachtas, ministerial circular, memorandum of agreement, or press statement. The legal challenge to the forthcoming referendum on abortion was dismissed by the High Court, which described the Government's proposed mechanism for amending the Constitution in the referendum as a "clever drafting device" which was not in conflict with Article 46 of the Constitution. He said the people were being asked to approve an amendment to the Constitution which made provision for a law relating to abortion as may be set out in a subsequent Act. The amendment was subject to a condition that it would lapse unless the subsequent Act was enacted containing a specific text within a prescribed time. That specific text was set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill, the 25th Amendment to the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill 2001. The judge said the proposal was properly being put before the people, who should be allowed to vote on it. He said Article 46.1 contained no express prohibition on an amendment in the form proposed. It also contained no mandatory obligation to the effect that an amendment must be contained in its entirety in the body or text of the Constitution itself. While he accepted this was the first time this particular procedure to amend the Constitution had been utilised, earlier amendments to the Constitution had been brought about through reference to documents which were not themselves incorporated into the text of the Constitution. On the applicants' claim that the Bill conflicted with the requirement of Article 46.4 of the Constitution that "a Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal", the judge said what the words "any other proposal" meant was a legislative proposal. He found the text contained in the Second Schedule to the 25th Amendment Bill had no legislative effect as a result of it being in the Second Schedule. He said the Second Schedule merely put before the people the text of an Act which may, if the referendum is passed, be later passed into law. He refused the application to put a stay on the setting of a poll date for the referendum. Costs of the proceedings were awarded against the students with a stay in the event of an appeal.