Wednesday, November 6, 2019

PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF SRI LANKA AND 26TH, SEPTEMBER 2018 COUP

PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF SRI LANKA AND 26TH, SEPTEMBER 2018 COUP

The people ask many questions on:

1. Whether the 19th Amendment to Sri Lankan Constitution has been given valid results in the field of Democracy,  or has taken valid actions to change presidential power, and giving more power to the Parliament.    Answer to this question is that no any change has been enforced to reduce Presidential power with in the executive Presidential System, but slight changes has been taken to establish democratic/participatory actions on managing of COMMISSIONS and appointing important persons to higher rank judicial and executive officials.  This has done through establishing CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL.
The following video is about this story.



2. Some people ask the causes of rivalry of the President/Parliament.
CATEGORIES OF POWERS CARRY EXECUTIVES.


Tuesday, December 11, 2018

MARAPUVALUVAMAIDI POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF SRI LANKA


PART: ONE
06th December, 2018
POLITICS IN DEBATE
OPTIONAL ARGUMENTS:
The Constitutions can be secured with a system of perfect struggle between PPS vs MERM.  MERM is formed with Misconduct of the Executives, and the Rivals in the Parliament. PPS is formed with the Parliament, People and People’s Organizations and the Supreme Court.  In detail, Misconducts are formed by the Head of the Executive, the Cabinet of Ministers, and Ministers, and by the State Officials.
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly, arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamaidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978. The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi” of the President.  This power of Supreme Court should not be indifference or ignored.  In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY A CONSTITUTION, WITH/IN SOVERREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.  IT IS VERY DIFERENT FROM THE NON-CONSTITUTIONAL STATES CONTROLLED AND GOVERNED BY SOVEREINGTY OF HEREDITARY KINGS.  IT IS ALSO DIFERENT FROM UNCONDITIONAL POWERS OF THE KING/QUEEN IN UK, BECAUSE UK PARLIAMENT HAS NOT YET CHANGED THE POWERS OF THE HEREDITARY KING/QUEEN IN UK.   KING/QUEEN IN UK ALWAYS ACT ON THE ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER. THE QUEEN HAS SOME PREROGATIVE POWERS, BUT RARELY ATTEND TO USE SUCH POWERS on the ground of personal relations. IN OCCATIONS TO PROROGUE, SUMMON OR TO DISOLVE PARLIAMENTI QUEEN CONSULT HOUSES OR THE PRIME MINISTER..  IF AMOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IS APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT, THE PRIME MINISTER SHOULD RESIGN OR ADVICE QUEEN TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT. IF PRIME MINISTER ADVISED QUEEN TO DISOLVE PARLIAMENT, QUENN HAS POWER TO DO NOT DISOLVE PARLIAMENT AND ASK PRIME MINISTER TO RESIGN, THEN TO ASK OPPOSITION LEADER TO ESTABLISH GOVERNMENT.  IN SRI LANKA WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN WHICH ELECTED PRESIDENT ACT AS THE HEAD OF THE STATE AND HEAD OF EXECUTIVE.  HE HAS NO HEREDITARY POWERS, BUT DECLARED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUION ARE ONLY POWERS FOR HANDLING THE AUTHORITY IN ADMINISTRATION.  SOME OF SUCH POWERS ARE CUSTOMERILY PREROGATIVE, CONDITIONAL, PARTICIPATORY AND TO BE EXERCISED UNDER THE CONDUCTORY GUIDANCE GIVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION.  
SRI LANKA PARLIAMENT HAS POWERS TO ASCEND OR REDUCE OWERS IN AUTHORITY FOR ADMINISTRATION HANDLLING BY THE PRESIDENT.   CONSTITUTION HAS NOT GIVEN DIVINE AUTHORITY POWER TO SRI LANKA PRESIDENT AS SEVERAL TIMES PARLIAMENT HAS APPROVED AMMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE SPIRIT OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.  CONDITIONAL OR CONDUCTORY OR ADVISORY RULES WHICH WERE  inserted and APPROVED IN THE CONSTITUTION BY THE PARLIAMENT FOR EXERCING THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT ARE MORE IMPORTANT AND MORE POWERFUL.   IT SAYS JUDGES IN AFRICA pretending to ATTEMPT TO ASCEND MORE POWERS TO THEIR PRESIDENTS, AND PLACE THE PRESIDENT IN a VENUE OF ROYAL SOVEREIGN, BECAUSE OF THEIR PERSONAL BENEFITS.  IN SRI LANKA WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS OR WE HAVE NOT PRACTICED THIS.  ONE DAY WHEN I WAS EXPLAINING THIS REALITY TO MY FRIEND, HE LOOKED AT ME IN VAIN AND VEIN WAY, AND LAUGHED.  I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY DID HE SO LAUGHED?  MAY BE DUE TO WE ARE A NATION AT VERY LOW LEVEL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STREAGNTH, WHRE IN SUCH SOCIAL CONTEXT WE EVENTUALLY SURRENDER TO HUMAN ERRORS IN OUR  DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
IT IS WELL SEEN THAT ARTICLE 33 (2) HAS INDICATED SOME POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, WHICH ARE SEEMED TO ME ADDITIONALOR REDUNDANT POWERS, WHICH INCLUDES, OPENING OF PARLIAMENT, EXPRESS OF STATE POLICY, PROROGUE, SOMMON AND DISOLVE PARLIAMENT, GRANTING REWARD OF HONOUR FOR EMINENT LAWYERS, GRANTING PARDON TO PRISONERS, WHICH SEEMED TO BE CUSTOMARY AND RITUALISTIC FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES RATHER THAN POWERS.
POWERS OF PRESIDENT TO APPOINT HEADS OF DEFENCE FORCES LIKE ARMY, NAVY AND AIRFORCE ARE NOT LISTED AS POWERS IN THE ARTICLE 33 (2), QUESTION IS WHY.?.  THIS IS DUE TO THE FORMATS WE USED IN FORMULATING A CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE USED FORMATS OF SOULBERY CONSTITUTION AND 1972 CONSTITUTION DEPICTING THEIR CHAPTER OUTLINES AND SECTIONS FORMATS. WHEN WE WRITE A SCIENTIFIC BOOK WE USE FORMATS INCLUDING CHAPTER OUTLINES, SUBSECTIONS AND SUBJECTS FALL UNDER SUCH FORMATS.
I WILL MAKE A SIMPLE PUZZEL FOR YOU TO DEAL WITH.  IN OUR SRI LANKA CONSTITUTION, IN CHAPTER ONE, IN ARTICLE 3, IT CLEARLY DECLARED THAT “PEOPLE’S EXECUTIVE POWER IN THE PEOPLE’S SOVEREIGNTY SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE(THIS IS VERY STRONG DECLARATION);  IT IS DECLARED IN THE ARTICLE 4, THAT THE PEOPLE’S LEGISLATIVE POWER SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE PARLIAMENT CONSISTED OF ELECTED PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES, AND THAT LEGISLATIVE POWER CANNOT BE AILENATED.  Article 5, declares that the people’s judicial power shall be exercised by courts through Parliament.   These declarations are more powerful, and according to J.L. Peiris the President can exercise ALL EXECUTIVE POWERS WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION EXISTED  BEFORE THE 19TH AMENDMENT ATTENDING powers his own neglecting newly established Constitutional council and other commissions which are established to reduce Presidential powers. I RAISE THIS QUESTION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARGUE THAT THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE REDUCED. I BELIEVE THESE PEOPLE ARE FUSSY CRACK BRAINED OR WORKING FOR OWN PERSONAL BENEFITS. My question is,  is this true???.
The President of Sri Lanka has no arbitrary, stubbornly and “marapuvaluvamidi” power to dissolve the Parliament and to remove the Prime Minister with a letter issued under his hand.  The President of Sri Lanka always think he has arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers, and the question is “Who are the persons in law or judicial field encourage the President to think so”?.  I think The President is not caught by crack brained, but someone is misleading him for errors.
I STRONGLY SAY THAT 19TH AMENDMENT IS SOLID AND VERY CLEAR AND CLEAN, AND HAS PROVIDED RULES WHICH ARE TO BE FOLLOWED AND ACEPTED IN THE MATTER OF DISOLVING THE PARLIAMENT.   WE WASTING TIME CONDUCTING IRRELEVANT DEBATES, FOR A MATTER WHICH EVEN A LOW LEVEL GOVERNMENT OFFICER HAS WELL DECIDED.  MY COUNTRY MAY SUSTAIN AGAIN.
Dr. D. Tennakoon   06th, December, 2018



PART: TWO
06th, December, 2018
SOVEREIGN, POWER AND POWER IN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS
Power, Legislative, Executive and Judicial is on debate.  Sovereign power, kings in the past reigned states handling himself all powers which we deal with today, by himself, with his high consent, as they were divine rewards. Breaching convention and customary rules some kings attempted to be BRUTAL dictator which is called dictatorship, which conditions arisen may be due to crack brained madness, or fond of women and alcohol. In the history, people had killed such idiots.  Mr. Willy, I explained this because you need to verify some issues.   As I explained you yesterday, I say again power is not power in nowadays.  It is very different from the ages of Socrates or Aristotle.  Under democracy power is with the people, Heads of the Executive exercise such powers behalf of the people, as such head executives with inherited royal power acts and performs, such as in UK.  But, many idiots in Africa and remote states who act as Heads of Executives turn to root to hell pretending they have sovereign powers. There is big difference between: 1. Sovereign Ruler, and 2. Democratic Ruler. Our man also secretly rooting to get rebirth his soul in a royal plant, as he is enthusiastic so much to be a proud king.  Our executive has no power to prorogue Parliament for long period though he personally attempt to do that., But he can end up a session, and summon Parliament.  Parliaments has sessions, and Universities have sessions, may be six months or one year, they announce the sessional closing date and the date of next commencement. Parliament sessions have specific time frame of/for assembling.   It is not a power, it is a function or duty.  I blame to supreme courts in developing poor nations, for their contribution in interpretation of law for favour of idiot dictators to confirm their dictatorship.
           For Sovereign Rulers, people have no right or power to amend or change the such ruler’s power.  But, the power or obligations/responsibilities of a democratic ruler can be amended/changed/alternated by people through their Legislature.  Our idiot does not know this because social hereditary.   Mr. Willy, I will come to your question now.  Yes our President has power to dissolve the Parliament, because he is the Chief of Executive.  It was mentioned in Article 33(2), Article 62(2), and Article 70.  It does not give power for one Idiot to dissolve Parliaments one month after every general election.  I know Our court with experts will realize this. Mr. Willy, go and read
SEE FOLLOWING KEY SENTENSES: You can get much insight reading the 197 Constitution, but our lawyers reluctant to get comparable evidences.
Constitution of Sri Lanka of 1972.  Given powers to that President by this 1972 Constitution
ARTICLE: 21. The President has the following powers and functions:-
                                [a] he declares war and peace;
                                [b] he summons, prorogues and dissolves the National State assembly;
                                [please compare this power with the power of President sited in the Constitution No.33 in the 19th amendment about the power of President to dissolve the parliament. This is only a formal power but it can be guided by another provision in the Constitution giving rules how to exercise this power. Therefore this power mentioned in Constitution No.33 in the 19th amendment become nominal statement.]
                                You have to follow the powers of President given in subsections [c], [d],[e], [f],[g], and [h] of section 21 of Constitution 1972.
 LATE Mr. William Gopallawa knew that he cannot dissolve parliament on his personal interest, because the Constitution had given legal advisory provisions when he may exercise his power to dissolve PARLIAMENT. This is the nature of Constitutions.  Our President Maithreepala Sirisena looked at the Article 33(2) of the 19th Amendment, and urged to dissolve the Parliament.  Mr. Willy, clearly and carefully see Article 33(2), as it says that the President has following powers in addition/redundant to specifically allocated powers powers, duties and functions by the Constitution or by other written law.   By the Article 33(2) given power is “amathara balayak”, or a redundary power.  In Principal, a Parliament is to be dissolved by the Head of the State, but that power is not to be used on the occations of conflicts with the Prime Minister or with the Parliament.  Majority of the MPs in our Parliament those  who challenge to President represent more than 7.5 million of the voters in this country.   The President represents only 6.2million voters, mainly the voters of UNP and TNA, and other minor parties. 
The President should surrender to the ARTICLE 70 (1) of the 19th amendment, and He can use his so-called power given in Article 33(2) to dissolve Parliament and punish to Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe, ONLY after the end of four and half years since the General Election of August, 1915.  He should surrender to constitutional law provisions given in Article 70(1) of the 19th amendment.
Mr. Willy, I listened to the speech given by Attorney General in the court, as he is a Government officer, his attempt to justify some issues which are considered by millions of voters as breaching of Constitution and principles of Democracy.
President maithipala id attempting to convince people that there is a some inconsistence in the 19th amendment, he will help to correct all these defects.  I advice to politicians please be careful not to tangle with the irrational black political stratergic tracks.  I am sure, that President’s powers have been reduced clearly and cleanly by the 19th amendment.  We should not give any encourage to justify all evils that has been done by President, making dark path for the nation to hell.
Sri Lanka Parliament has power to amend our constitution to change one man role.  According to our Constitution, if we amend particularly mentioned few Articles, we need get approved it by Referendum.  Without going for referendum, we can reduce some powers of the President.  I understand, in 2015 some judges and lawyers were in different opinion standing on against amending Presidential power.  No; all anti arguments are fake: our Parliament has sole legislative power to create participatory mechanism for exercising of Presidential powers, reducing such powers to go hand in hand with the Parliament..   The President attempts to mislead people showing Constitutional defects.  That is his uncertain standard. In January 2020, he will face to a number of cases against to him, I am sure there is greater possibility to be indicted.  There is no Constitutional defects in the 19th amendment, it has been passed by the Parliament strongly and correctly.  Please don’t make fake arguments and  deceive and mislead people.?
Dr. D. Tennakoon       06th, December, 2018
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly, arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978. The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi” of the President.  This power of Supreme Court should not be indifference or ignored.  In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
The President of Sri Lanka has no arbitrary, stubbornly and “marapuvaluvamidi” power to dissolve the Parliament and to remove the Prime Minister with a letter issued under his hand.  The President of Sri Lanka always think he has arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers, and the question is “Who are the persons in law or judicial field encourage the President to think so”?.  I think The President is not caught by crack brained, but someone is misleading him for errors.PART:THREE
06th December, 2018
POLITICS IN DEBATE
OPTIONAL ARGUMENTS:
The Constitutions can be secured with a system of perfect struggle between PPS vs MERM.  MERM is formed with Misconduct of the Executives, and the Rivals in the Parliament. PPS is formed with the Parliament, People and People’s Organizations and the Supreme Court.  In detail, Misconducts are formed by the Head of the Executive, the Cabinet of Ministers, and Ministers, and by the State Officials.
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly, arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978. The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi” of the President.  This power of Supreme Court should not be indifference or ignored.  In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
The President of Sri Lanka has no arbitrary, stubbornly and “marapuvaluvamidi” power to dissolve the Parliament and to remove the Prime Minister with a letter issued under his hand.  The President of Sri Lanka always think he has arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers, and the question is “Who are the persons in law or judicial field encourage the President to think so”?.  I think The President is not caught by crack brained, but someone is misleading him for errors. 
The following common sentence exists in Sri Lanka Constitutions like, Saulebury Constitution, Constitution of 1972, and 1978 Constitution:
“President/Governor General shall have power to Prorogue, Summon, and Dissolve the Parliament”.
What does it mean: it means that the President is the only person to issue announcement/proclamation to public that the Parliament is dissolves.  It is not power to dissolve by arbitrary actions.  In 19th amendment Article 70 has cleanly expressed/enacted when should the President can issue announcement of dissolving the Parliament. What is the meaning of this?. The Parliament is the Prime mechanism and prime establishement which was consisted of MPs appointed by the people of Sri Lanka.  When it came to need to dissolve the Parliament, in accordance with the law provisions given in the Constitution, it should be done only by the President making proclamation like in other Constitutional Governments in the World.  It does not give mad or aggressive, or low mental order Presidents to dissolve parliaments every year after General Elections Concluded, to harass the smooth functioning of the Governments, or until President’s Political Party or Groups of political parties functioning under his guidance getting majority of MPs elected to the Parliament.  Why our some law experts going marketing for President cannot understand this.  Please do not expresee fake law arguments and push this country to hell.  I hate these lawyers.
See following common sentence which has been incerted in Soulbery Constitution, Constitution of 1972, and 1978 Constitution in Sri Lanka:
“The President/Governor General shall appoint as the Prime Minister one from MPs in the  Parliament who has optimal confidence of the Parliament, according to the opinion of the President/The Governor General.  After a General Election is Concluded, if not any party has  a majority MPs elected, the President call on leaders of the main parties to Study the situation.  Under the 1978 Constitution, since always majority of the MPs were elected from the President’s party, appointment of the Prime Minister was not a question.  But in 1993, there was a question.   Any party did not get majority of the MPs in the General Election of 1993.  Then President Dingiri Banda Wijetunga had discussions with party leaders to deal with problem.  Chandrika Bandaranaka could convince the President that she had support of the leader of the Muslim Congress, Mr. Ashrof.  Then question was ended. People have puzzle why Maithreepal Sirisena does not follow the same procedure as D.B. Wijetunga President had followed. Why maithree, according to meadia evidence attempted to give bribary for MPs to get support to show majority in the Parliament for establishing SLFP/Eksath Nidahas Sandanaya coalition Government.
Under the provisions given in the 19th amendment in the Constitution of 1978, The President of Sri Lanka has no poer to remove the Prime Minister issuing a letter under his hand.  But he removed the Prime Minis on 26th October 2018.  The President knew he has no power to remove the Prime Minister, but he did.  Further, he and his follower politicians ask Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe or UNP to file a case about the decision taken by the President to remove Prime Minister.  I and many people see some hidden secret under this expression of the President  and his follower politicians.   We do not know whether they are going to sole problem with money.
Our people including law authorities think under colonial mentality, that the President/Governor General have had authority to dissolve Parliaments arbitrary, stubbornly or marapuvaluvamaidi power. Once in 2004, Chandrika Bandaranayaka dissolved Parliament undemocratically to expel the UNP Government.   This was a criminal of using powers against to opposition political parties.   When majority of MPs are elected from President’s party the President do not need to seek stratergic ways to dissolve the parliament.

The Parliament is not a subordinate establishment to the President.  According to the articles: 3, 4, 5 in the Chapter One in the Constitution the parliament is the most supreme Institution in the Government.  Many Presidents of the Constitutional Governments in the Thrid World thik they are superior to the Parliaments, because they are thirdworld’s Presidents.  People in those countries believe that this bad-ward situation exists, because of their Supreme Courts are indifferent. When majority of MPs are elected from other parties, the stubbornly Presidents attempt to collect MPs from other parties to establish joint Government.  When he could not do this the President become violent, mad, fraudulent, frustrated,stubbornly and unhealthy.  Someone need to massage, treat to head or to give kola-kanda as medicine.  If I have permission, I will explain this situation to our Supreme Court.

Dr. Dharmadasa Tennakoon
6th, December 2018





Monday, November 12, 2018

SECURE PEOPLE'S SOVEREINTY IN DEMOCRACY-HATE DICTATORSHIP


SHORT STORIES -1:    SOLIDARITY POWER OF THE SUPREME COURTS
When I was in Australia, one Libyan person became friend of mine, and one day he was talking about the judicial system of Libya.  He explained that, people believe judicial system is corruptive and biased to their personal political impressions and maintained closed relationship with eminent politicians and upper class people.  They were full of  biased for prestige, high positions and promotions, money and property, and so on.  They are less disciplined with human errors.   People reluctant to go to Supreme Courts on any political discrimination, because people believe it will not work.  I explained it as a consequence of inherited slavery bondage rooted in the total social system.  This will push any nation in to hell.   Though I am a Sri Lankan, I explained him the excellent state of the Indian judiciary system.   In Sri Lanka, during early years of last decade the people had no confidence in Supreme Court due to some acts of then Chief Justice.  The judges in the Indian Supreme Courts are highly educated law experts.   They have qualified with post graduate level higher degrees, and have acquainted with higher level law research.  Getting a position in Supreme Court in India is highly competitive, it is not easy.
I gave him a example of such talent, braveness and impartiality of Indian Supreme Court.  Indian Supreme Court concerns about the Dignity of the Nation, not their personal privileges.
“In 1965, then President of India while he was delivering a lecture before Indian Law League, he argued that should he as the President of India always perform his powers, functions and duties according to the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers in India”.   This statement gave high attention to the people of India.  People took this statement to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided and declared the  President of India should exercise his powers, functions and duties according to the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers as he did up to may in 1965, according to convention.    Later in 1970s, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi amended the Indian Constitution including following sentence:  “President of India in exercising his powers, functions and duties shall act on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers”.  After that, the problem of that issue was ended.   I attempt to appreciate braveness and wishful wise decisions taken by them making and demonstrating power of the Indian Supreme Court.


SHORT STORIES-2:  LESIONS FROM SRI LANKA CONSTITUTION OF 1972
Morning we were waiting to go to chena.  Amma had sent Morizi to buy sugar and betel stuffs for us and com.  Today he was too delayed to come.   Suddenly he was  running to us talking about something, he was seemed to be fizzled  but few words were heard by Burampi mama.  Burampi mama asked, “Morizi who is mad and crack brained President, who told you all these nonsense”.  Morizi explained what people were talking around the coffee shop this morning. He explained how people gathered at the shop blamed President as he was mad and crack, naming he as “Kundalla” and follower of Samanalio.   “ It is very serious my son, if a President with executive powers become mad and crack brained, it is very serious, everything will be tangled, it is bad time we are getting now” Burampi mama explained everything very calmly.  I had before this heard some people were talking about this issue last evening.  I think I should write something about this issue today.
No any constitution in the nations of this world give powers to Executive President to dissolve the Parliament of the people’s representatives which has come to power for six years, breaking the law of the Constitutions.  The Constitutions include formal [in accordance with rules, customs and convention] and formative[giving or tending to give shape to the prestige of the position] parts in the provisions which includes the formal nature of the powers, functions and duties of the President.   But in Constitutions attempts are made to enact provisions to confederate and come into alliance: formal powers of the President as head executive always confederate with an another body in the executive according to the provisions made  by the Constitution, by its series of proceeding laws in the next chapters.  In the preceding[proceeding] chapters, Constitutions enact rules to control and guide the President advising him how to exercise his formal/formative powers, functions and duties.  These parts of provisions are most important than the provisions with list of the formal powers of the President.  I suggest attention of Supreme Court is needed to this argument.  More valid examples can be drawn from Sri Lanka Constitutions in 1972 and 1978 [including amendments] on the systems of conferring or vesting formal powers to a Head of Executive in a State, and enacting forgoing conditional rules for head of Executive guiding him in which manner he should exercise his powers, provided by the Constitutions.   The President should exercise his powers as indicated and elaborate by the proceeding laws of the Constitution.,,
We can learn a good lesion from Sri Lanka Constitution of 1972.  In this Constitution:

CHAPTER V11
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
Section:               19. There shall be a President of the Republic Sri Lanka who is the Head of the   State.
                                20. The President is the Head of the Executive and the Commander-in-Chef of the armed forces.
                                21. The President has the following powers and functions:-
                                [a] he declares war and peace;
                                [b] he summons, prorogues and dissolves the National State assembly;
                                [please compare this power with the power of President sited in the Constitution No.33 in the 19th amendment about the power of President to dissolve the parliament. This is only a formal power but it can be guided by another provision in the Constitution giving rules how to exercise this power. Therefore this power mentioned in Constitution No.33 in the 19th amendmend become nominal statement.]
                                You have to follow the powers of President given in subsections [c], [d],[e], [f],[g], and [h] of section 21 of Constitution 1972.
Please follow the massive executive powers vested in the President in sections: 22., 41, 54, 91, 92 [2], 94 [2], 95[1], 96, 98[3], 100, 103, 108, 111, 112, 122, 125[3] of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, 1972.  One can conceive looking at these powers of the President Late William Gopallawa that he was the first executive President of Sri Lanka.  Courts should pay attention to this as this is the nature of Constitutions.   Please note carefully all these executive powers were debaunched or debased by an another sentence given in proceeding section of the Constitution of 1972.  In this constitution Section: 27 enacted that:
Section:  27. The President shall always except as otherwise provided by the constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister or of such other minister whom the Prime minister may have given authority to advice the President on any particular function assigned to that minister.
Please note this is the nature of the Constitutions.  Given normal powers to President in a normal declaration in one site of the Constitution become enactive after having the same Constitutions provided decisive rules in provisions showing the manner in which that power should be executed.
I suggest more attention and weight should give to Constitution No.70 which has attempted to control and has reduced the power of President sited in Constitution No. 33 in the 19th amendment.
In accordance with the above vision, concentration and arguing on a single line, neglecting and discriminating the major conceptions and consistency of the all the provisions through the Constitution will lead to grow arbitrary and dictatorship in a country pushing our nation in to hell.  We should not let this to happen again.  This attempt harmfully discriminate proceeding active provisions and laws in Constitution.   This process discriminate and violate the sovereignty of the  people in Sri Lanka and,  I suppose this system should not be practiced pulling nation to dark hell.  We should accept the consistency of any law volume on any issue until have gone through active lines of flow of the base of concepts.
Conceptive and formal expression in establishing a Head of Executive in a state by its Constitution always give guiding rules to the Head of Executive  in a State indicating how he shall exercise his normative powers.  These ruling active provisions giving in a Constitution strictly control president’s arbitrary and personal biased actions against to the sovereignty and democracy of the people in the State.  These guiding rules, laws and provisions in a Constitution of any State control the dictatorship or dictatorial and despotic power of the President securing democracy and sovereignty of the people in a State.  In any country justice system needs to be more rational, powerful, and non-biased with human errors to control the tendencies of a President or a ruler in a state turning and moving towards despotic power overthrowing the laws in the Constitutions.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

KETIKATHAWA [A SHORT STORY] by Dr. D. Tennakoon



A  LOCAL PHILOSOPHER


      
        

House of a Poor Farmer
       


House of a Teacher
































Local Politicians













Tuesday, June 26, 2018

WARNING? WARNING? WARNING 20th AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION OF SRI LANKA


REFORM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXCLUSIVE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
THE CASE OF SRI LANKA
Written by Dr. D. Tennakoon.
SUMMARY
This is a warning of democracy of future under present executive system of one man role, unless we change the executive Presidential system devolving powers to a parliamentary representative council to act as Advisory Council to the President.   Tomorrow, a powerful and wit-full candidate can assign as the President, but the inherent weakness and risk in the existing Constitution will not end, depending on one person for all.  The proposed 20th amendment should be meaningful: Establishing Executive Advisory Council to advice President, President to be a member of the Executive Advisory Council but President should not be a member of the Cabinet, The President to act as Head of the Executive Advisory Council, Giving power to Prime Minister to act as Head of the Cabinet, Power of Parliament to nominate a MP to be appointed as the Prime Minister, power of Parliament to pass resolution on no-confidence or impeachment upon the President, or on the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet and other ministers.  
Dr. Dharmadasa Tennakoon

The fact that one person’s decision making authority, in a democratic  government, with personal outstanding human errors can be misused and misguided by international or local intervention.  Balance of power between President and Parliament..;..?. Contrast to the developing political will of the people, dominating executive President’s desire, opinion and will in the executive government will make much confusion in future with decelerating politics.
By 19th amendment, no enough changes have been brought in to the Constitution to devolve Presidential power to a higher level executive body, but it has brought few important changes, such as:
1.      Establishment of Constitutional Council and other Commissions, and their powers,
2.      Under Article: 43[2], appointment of the Cabinet Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister,
3.      Under Article: 44[1], appointment of Non Cabinet Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister,
4.      Under Article: 45[1], appointment of Deputy Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister,
5.      Under Article 46[2], After appointment of a Prime Minister just after the general Election, the President has no powers to change [reappoint another MP as Prime Minister] the Prime Minister,
6.      Under Article 46[3], President has no power to change Ministers without advice of the Prime Minister, and
7.      Adding new provisions under two new Chapters, i.e., Chapter XIX [A], and Chapter XIX [B].  Except these changes, there are no valid changes brought to devolve power, and to limit the number of ministerial subjects which are to be handled by the President.
-------------------------
The most unwise thing introduced by the 19th amendment is amending of provisions for reducing duration period of the Presidency office and the Parliament to five years.  Reduction of the term of the President’s office to five years cannot accept as s scarification of Presidential powers.   According to the Article:83 [a] and 83[b] of the Constitution of 1978, there is no provisions to change/amend Article: 30 [2] on duration of term of office of President and Article:62 [2] on duration of term of Parliament, without approval of Referendum.   If Supreme Court find the truth of this issue situation can be changed.  If any change make altering sentences of these Articles: [30[2] and 62 [2] need to be approved by a Referendum.

PREFACE
Whatever the political party would come in to power in 2020 Presidential Election,  the present Constitution has to be amended to produce a most meaningful and trustworthy Constitution to avoid politically deleterious effects that would come to contravene in the political future.  In Presidential Election in 2020,  a powerful person, fresh minded [fairly mind] and with wit-full talent may be selected by the people for Presidency, but it is not the theme of present research paper which persuading for change.
Do not think that the same government would come in to power at the next time, but think to do what it needs to do today.  We have ravages of time in physical, economic and political retarding our progress amongst the poor nations.  I will give a humbly clue/hint that SLFP alone will not come to power again.  Existing grudge between UNP Executive Committee members is very unhappy.  Aloysias/Perpetual Treasuries has seriously damaged image of UNP that alone cannot come to power.  But, if Sajith Premadasa contests in next Presidential Election, there may be a big competition,
most probably will win, because people need fresh wit-full mind to Presidency.  If Sujith will win the Presidential election, MPs of other main parties will join to him.  If other candidate of the new rising party will win the MPs of two main parties will join to him.  This is the nature.  However, the next President whoever comes to power, under present Constitution will be keen, will control unnecessary freedom of speech and trade union undermined campaigns, which are probably led by defeated political parties. But that procedure will antagonize the people and civil organizations.  The political parties should get competitive with peoples donation and participation.
The politicians can accept donation or persons can donate to politicians for their political career, education, campaigns and to spend at elections, and such acceptance or donating is not a criminal by law.
I have research findings that many company holders have given funds to both major parties as donation to satisfy their campaign needs regardless whatever the party that would come to power.  If one argues such acceptance or donating is criminal, he might be a rioter/rebeler against to democratic freedom.   Our Constitution should be able to secure rights from rioters.
The 20th Amendment to the constitution should not be furtive document, at the movement, it should be demonstrated before media for the use of public.   This amendment should not be lacked of gumption, and simple disarrayed document like 19th Amendment.   The Presidential system should not be eradicated, but the executive power has to be implemented in foremost democratic way, with the guidance and advice of the “Executive Advisory Council”, which is consisted with ministerial representation.  This system is lined up with the concept of Parliamentary Executive government system.  If we are unable to identify the needs of today at this movement, the political strength of the government could be deteriorated since 2020.  This is a genuine warning. WE HAVE TO THINK DEEP BEFORE 2020 ELECTION. THIS IS A  WARNING TO RE-THINK.  we Should think, UNLESS WE WILL face with crisis in democracy.  now we have come to a threshhold of an era to look over and over the world.
We should have a Constitution and law without many vague and broad/spread meanings, but with clearly defined, focused and well expressed provisions. The Constitution should be consistent with realities of the democracy, the systems of “tenure of sovereignty of people”.  Dominating executive President’s desire, opinion and will in the executive government will make much confusion in future with decelerating politics.
1. PREAMBLE AND GENERAL OVERVIEW
Executive power is defined as “all executive powers except legislative and judicial powers”.  The executive power is generally meant as “Governing power with executing laws in administration the State”.   The executives can call for executive sessions, which mean the holding of private meetings of the governing body of the State and, in executive sessions it provides room to work out procedures rules and regulations under the guiding issues of law.   There is no possibility to handle this approach without releasing the executive powers of the executive Presidential system.
In conventional devolution of State powers among three sectors, i.e., Legislature, Executive and judicial sectors, it has made delimitation of the powers among such sectors.  The legislative power is defined as “power of making and building of law of the State in relation to national defense, democracy and government, secure rights of the citizens and security of the public, secure social order and integrity, resources and wealth management, private earnings and consumption, and any other things in the international relations”.  The legislative power is exercised by the peoples’ representatives, the Parliament.  The Constitutional law and other law delimit the powers and functions of the executives of the government.  The Parliament has power and fair right to assume task to increase efficiency and actability of the executives of the government.  On the other hand, the Legislature and the Executives have fair right to review the judiciary and judicial procedures and efficiency.   The Parliament should have powers to overrule the decisions taken by courts of law regarding the human rights as elaborated in the Constitution subject to the provisions given there in, if the opinion of parliament is that such decision is incompatible to the law.  The judicial power is defined as “the power of execution of law through the courts of law by judicial authoritative officials”.  The judicial power has to be executed independently without subject to external intervention and force, under the authority of law, which is called as “independence of the justice”.   The Legislature has powers to apply procedures in revision judicature and state administration, and reforming law intensively applicable to the executive government.  The justice and judicial procedures have to assure the people, and convince the people that they have performed perfectly and independently under the authority of the law.   In this context,  the people and the people’s organizations, and media can step up to debate on such matters with fair understandings of the captioned legal actions.
On one hand, the Presidency and the executives could procure information, facts, concepts and opinions from the public and could analyze them for betterment of the administration.  On the other hand, the people and the people’s organizations could submit reports and guideline papers to the higher executives.  But, in Sri Lanka we have no proper mechanism established to receive such information and concepts, and to analyze them for use.
The Chapter III on “Fundamental Rights”, and Chapter VI on “State Policy, Principals, and Fundamental Obligations” of the Constitution has given guidelines to formulate  State Policy, Government Policy, Economic Policy, Social Policy, but it needs to further develop the concepts of these chapters, it will make helpful to Cabinet in formulation of policies. In the present context, the higher executives, the Cabinet of Ministers, have power to design and implement policies in national economic development, and sector policies such as: 1. Agriculture/Animal Husbandry, 2.Industry, 3. International Trade, 4. International Economic Cooperation, 5. Basic Social Needs, and 6. Social Policy, in papers or policy documentary files, under the provisions given in Chapters III and VI in the Constitution of 1978.  It does not need to argue that the papers to submit to the Parliament, as these policy papers do need approval of the Parliament.

 Notion of reducing of the executive powers of the elected President is a long existing demand of the people.   For this purpose, it is not an essential need to replace the post of elected President with the office of appointed President.    We can achieve this notion with carefully planned and designed preponderant amendments to the existing Constitution.   The amendments need to assure and upgrade the state of the Parliament and the Cabinet, empowering the people’s sovereignty and democracy.   It needs to plan for diverting and decentralization of executive Presidential power at the higher level political body of the executive, which is directly responsible to the Parliament.
First, it needs to amend Article:4 [b], and to be replaced with “The executive power of the people shall be exercised by the Parliament through The President, the Executive Advisory Council, and the Cabinet of Ministers”.   There need amendments to Chapter III and VI to further develop the contents in those chapters regarding the policies in economic development, international relations, and foreign investments. It need to amend the power of the Parliament as to that the Parliament should have powers to overrule the decisions taken by courts of law regarding the human rights as elaborated in the Constitution subject to the provisions given there in, if the opinion of parliament is that such decision is incompatible to the law.  Other hand, the government should go before the court secure public rights, not waiting until people go before court.   These are issues that we have to think and put in to  in law development concepts.
The Constitution should be the foremost powerful tool of the State and of the government, unless the political, social and economic progress and benefits will be decelerated with weakened reign of the democracy.  The Sovereignty of the people, i.e., legislative, executive and judiciary powers should be exercised by Parliament respectively through Parliament itself, the President and the Cabinet, and the judicial courts and the institutions.
1.1   GENERAL ISSUES IN POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY.  
A government is elected by the people by their votes, but the voters and the representatives of the opposition are eventually the neutral part of the government. In the competitive economic, political and social orders, this opposition part of the State/government should not be partners of the beneficiaries of the international movements, as many developing nations have become victims of such international movements.  This realm is not been seen in dictatorship governments, but widely seen in democratic poor nations/governments.  A Government is elected by the people, on the basis of that the 60 percent of the voters have voted for the appointed Government, while 40 percent have voted to representatives in the opposition.   
Women Lead in Politics
At least a half of that 40 per cent are or can be led by some hindered movements, civil organizations or the foreign bound movements to weaken the policies, plans and transfix the Government.   In that nature, that democracy will fail.  The opposition politicians attempt to demonstrate ridden their power over the government, and some attempt to use Parliament as their threshold to demonstrate high voice to pretending before people over television [cheap media to shout and misguide people] people that they are clever.  The Parliament should not be a witless place, but the place to give wit of representatives
1.2 EMPOWERING PARLIAMENT AGAINST POLITICAL SCAMS
Scams are frauds, which take different types and facets, i.e., the ravages of time focused on debasing some political groups with scares, raving violently and angrily over media slanders to change peoples’ attitudes, propaganda for fundamentalism alias falsely wroth of party politics,  attempts for making people become violent,  and so on.  The Theory of Political Scams has given intensive account on this realm.

1.3 AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION NEEDED TO CONTROL SCAMS
The Theory of Political Scams has given an account on the prevailing systems of fraudulently prepared accusations, and trumpery media reports which seems to be scams focused only on media publicity and misleading the peoples.   These scams are formulated focusing elections, and their party publicity, especially aiming and traducing at the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister, or eminent leaders in other parties.
 The scammers of this kind collect various scam reports and voice cuts from different people using their talent in scam, traduce and slander.   The Parliament should have given power by the Constitution to control scams.  The Constitution should be amended to include powers to the Parliament in such accusation to pass resolution by Parliament to advice to the Supreme Court to conduct inquiry on the case with in given time frame and submit the report to the Speaker.   The parliament should take appropriate decision based on the recommendations of the Supreme Court.  In the course of attempts of scams and formulation of such invalid evidence through irrelevant hands, the Parliament should have power to pass resolution to declare that accused politician is subject to free from the jurisdiction, until the inquiries are completed at an adequate standard.
Ex-Minister Explains Next Steps
The habits of traducing, slandering and polluting and disgracing one’s character have now been incorporated to culture and conditioned to day to day political life.  More popularly the media is running behind this to catch good meal.  Traducing and slandering is an offense of making false statements that damage a person’s reputation and prestige character. It is an attempt to violate fundamental rights and on the other hand, human rights.  The Speaker is not watchful of this like attempts as there is no procedure for this, the Parliament become Hasty and Ghosts’ palace [Holman Walwwa] to the people.
1.4 NORMS OF THE PEOPLES’ REPRESENTATIVES.
The expressions in the Parliament should not be attempted to prevaricate the policies by deceiving the people, and to provide deleterious impact on the government and on the public.  The behaviors in the Parliament and of the Parliament should not lead to create and encourage initial forms of the terrorism.  Attempts of the peoples’ representatives should not be contravened to law pretending in the guise of freedom of speech, and to persuade public to take contravene actions against to law.  
Buddhist Priests in Politics
The politicians need aptitude for refinement of their policy to fit with the timely needs locally or internationally, solidarity and cohesiveness not withstanding with their narrow party politics.  The people, the civil organizations and the learned community need to refit their minds to create sensitive politicians, with common sense for initiative and qualities likely to bring success to the nation.   Our executives at the top level lack gumption in competitive path to progress.   Politicians with rashly generated conceptions and strategies based on party politics, in hasty impetuous, overbold and reckless temperament, and acting or done without due consideration severely damage to the Sovereignty of the people and it may be threat to the democracy. 
2. THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
2.1 THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT- 1972 AND 1978 CONSTITUTIONS
The Presidential System introduced to Sri Lanka in 1972 is a result of rehashing and adaptation   the previous British introduced Executive Parliamentary system in Ceylon.  The Queen then was the Head of the State, Head of the Government, and The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in Ceylon: The Queen reigned the State, but did not govern.  Accordingly, The Queen appointed a Governor General to exercise all powers, duties and functions of the Queen in Ceylon.  In 1972, when we were seeking alternatives for releasing from the British monarchy, and establishing Executive parliamentary Government, it was the one alternative to look for Presidential system, in which President reigns, but does not govern.  [Reign= Hold the Office of the Head of the State, Head of the Executive, and hold the position and power as “Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces].  
Youth Participation in Politics is Higher.
On this objective, constitutional assembly did not go for elected Presidential system, other way they proposed a position of the President, who is appointed by the Prime Minister, but the appointed President, according to the Constitution, shall hold the office of the Head of the State, Head of the Executive, and the Commander-in –Chief of the Armed Forces, and in-charge of the executive powers of the Executive Government. But, does not Govern the kingdom, as the President has to act on the advice of the Prime Minister[Article: 27[1] of the 1972 Constitution of Sri Lanka], which reads as:   “Article:27.[1] The President shall always except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister, or of such other Minister to whom the Prime Minister may have given authority to advise the president on any other particular function assigned to  that minister”.  In 1978 Constitution, the elected executive President had powers to act without advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, as he was not responsible to the  Cabinet of Ministers and to the Parliament on his powers vested by the Constitution.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka 1972
CHAPTER VII
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
Article: 19. There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka who is the    Head of the State.
Article:20. The President is the Head of the Executive and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Hon. William Gopallawa  was the first Sri Lankan President who held the executive powers and held the position of the Commander –in- Chief of the Armed Forces [1972-1977]. 
According to the Constitution of 1972, the appointed President was the Head of the state, Head of the Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces [see Chapter VII, Article 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 on the powers and functions of the President].   According to the Article 27 [1], the president should act on the advice of the Prime Minister.   If the President failed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, no one go before courts.  Article 27[2] says,  “No institution administering justice and likewise no other institution, person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to inquire in to ,pronounce upon or  in any manner call in question any act or omission on the part of the President on the ground that the provisions of subsection  [1] of this section have not been complied with”.   The only thing in such occasion can do is to act according to the Article 26 [2],  under the conditions of the office of President of the Republic of Sri Lanka becomes vacant.  According to this condition, the President can be removed on the National State Assembly passing a resolution of no-confidence against the President, proposed by the Prime Minister. 
The second Sri Lankan President who held the office of the Head of the State, Head of the Executive, the Head of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces was Hon. J.R. Jayawardena [1978-1989].  According to the Constitution of 1978, the President was elected by people, and executed all executive powers of the Government by himself, as the Executive Presidential System was introduced, he did not need by authority to get advice from the Prime Minister or from the Cabinet of Ministers, under the provisions of the Constitution of 1978. 
2.2 EMPOWERING THE PARLIAMENT AND THE CABINET OF MINISTERS
AMENDMENTS FOR POWERS OF PARLIAMENT
There is a need to amend Article 4 [b] to perform the executive powers of the President in and foremost democratic way.  It should be replaced with a clause “The executive power of the people should be exercised by the President through the Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers”.  In this context, it is needed to review and study the compatibility of following issues and objects in amendments.
1.       There is an interdepending relationship between the existing law and practicing of judicial powers.  In the case of interpreting any matter in the context of Constitutional law or existing law, the Parliament shall have power interpret such matters passing a resolution in the Parliament, and passing that resolution to the Supreme Court.
2.       The Parliament should exercise its powers and privileges without making contravention to the provisions of the Constitution, and to the existing criminal law.
3.       If the Cabinet of Ministers, in the its opinion, thinks to empower existing law by replacing weak and uncertain clauses of law with clear and meaningful clauses of law, the Cabinet of Ministers should submit request to the Parliament, and with the consent of the Parliament the Speaker should appoint an “Inquiry Panel of Law” to investigate and report to the parliament. The Parliament may take necessary action based on the recommendation of the report.
The Constitution of 1978 has clearly provided that “There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction control of the government of the Republic, which shall be collectively responsible to the parliament on all matters for which they are responsible”[Article 43 [1].  But, the executive President had powers to act on his own as he was not responsible to the Cabinet of Ministers, AND LACK OF ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE CABINET.  In our new amendments, the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers collectively or individually should be clearly interposed in the Constitution.  According to the 1978 Constitution, the President has no powers to dictate to the decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers, but he did because there were no alternative powers to Cabinet.   Actually the President should not intervene in to the Cabinet decisions, and express ideas before public conferences contrary to the collective responsibility in the Cabinet.   If it happens, it is a sign of the route to crisis in democracy.
Freedom in Politics to Protest Government Policies
The position of the Prime Minister is most important in a democratic government.  There is a need to replace the clause in Article 43 [2] enabling the Prime Minister to act as the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers, and President to act as the Head of the newly proposed “The Executive Advisory Council”, enabling to share the powers between the President, the parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers.  It should take to notice that the responsibility, powers, privileges of the Cabinet of Ministers should be clearly interposed in a Constitution.  
2.3 OTHER ISSUES NEED AMENDMENTS:  STATUS OF THE PRIME MINISTER
If people think at this movement to go for another constitutional amendment, it will need to deal about other issues, which need clarifications for change in other forms, other than the issue of reducing of executive power of the president.  For example, amendments need to:
1.       Change of the Chief Ministers involvement in making orders of directive to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in fulfillment of his duties in the Province,
2.       Clear explanation of the Speakers, duties, obligations and functions in the Parliament.   These amendments for power need in the context of outrage and indignity expressions and behavior in the parliament, and to assigning of valuable time of the Parliament to use that time and opportunity to encourage and resume the timely worthy matters, which affect to the national integration, rapid economic growth and social welfare.  [as many members and leaders in the Parliament waste their time devoting much time to upgrade their political party, and to build their personal image].
3.       Powers and functions of the Prime Minister should be clearly expressed. After a conclusion of a General Election, the first day of parliamentary assembly Speaker is elected. As new proposals, the parliament should nominate a name of a MP to be appointed as Prime Minister.  Prime Minister should be the Head of the Cabinet.  Article 43 should be amended for:
a.       Prime Minister to be Head of the Cabinet,
b.      Prime Minister shall, with agreement of the President, determine the number of ministries and Ministers, and assignment of subjects and functions to Ministries.
c.       Prime Minister shall nominate MPs from among the members of the Parliament to be appointed by the President as Ministers, other Ministers and Deputy Ministers to be in - charged of the Ministries as determined.
d.      Prime Minister may at any time recommend to President to change the assignment of subjects and functions of Ministries and change the Ministers.
4.       As given guidelines of issues above, clear explanation and citation of the powers, duties and functions of the Prime Minister should be included in an Article [Article:43] in the Constitution taking following issues;  For example:
a.       The Prime minister shall be the head of the Cabinet of Ministers, shall review and monitor functions and performance of Ministries, and lead the Ministers to achieve target of the Ministries,
b.      The Prime Minister shall have opportunity to represent Sri Lanka at the international forums of economic cooperation, and the Head of States on the advice of the Executive Advisory Council,
c.       The Prime Minister, except the new Prime Minister appointed just after a general Election, shall determine with advice of Executive Advisory Council the number of Cabinet Ministries, number of other Ministries, and number of State Ministries and assignment of subjects and functions to the Ministries and, nomination of the MPs in the Parliament to be appointed as the Ministers and the deputy ministers.
d.      The Prime Minister shall have power to make request to the Executive Advisory Council to reshuffle the Cabinet or to reduce or increase the number of ministries, and to change assignment of subjects and functions to the ministries. 
e.       The Prime Minister shall answer to the questions and queries raised by the Members of the Parliament regarding the performance of the President.        
Another issue is that, if we change executive powers of the elected President, there should not be a Constitutional rule for a winning presidential candidate at a presidential election to receive more than 50 percent of the valid votes, AT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THAT RULE SHOULD BE REMOVED.                                

3. EXECUTIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
Executive powers and functions of the elected President are clearly given in Constitution 1978.  In new amendments following issues should have to be taken in to notice.
a.      President may have power at any time to submit reports, guiding suggestions, and advising reports to the Parliament, to the Executive Advisory Council and to the Cabinet of Ministers, and
b.      If President thinks he needs some powers on special reasons, The President may request the Parliament by a report, and Parliament may grant such powers  for a specific time period, by an Act or resolution proposal passed by the Parliament.
3.1 CHANGE IN EXECUTION OF POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
“EXECUTIVE ADVISORY COUNCIL” SYSTEM
Establishing an Executive Advisory Council of Ministers, on one hand assure the Constitutional democratic power and, on the other hand assure executive Parliamentary system.   It balances the power between Parliament and the Presidential government system.
This Constitution [The Constitution of 1978] has been developed through 19 amendments up to date, and some executive Presidential powers have been vested in Constitutional Council and in a range of stabilized Commissions, and some powers have been vested with the Prime Minister. There is no end of the debate on revisions for the Executive Presidential system.  While One group of politicians claim for replacing the elected Executive Presidential system to nominated and appointed presidential system, the other group of politicians claim for continuing with elected Executive Presidential system, but they suggest  minor modifications through amendment to the Constitution.  My suggestion is that, at his movement we have to think about wide coverage of possible amendments to secure democratic and participatory system to be introduced to the elected Presidential  system.  Creating of a Executive Advisory Council to advice president in exercise and execution of the presidential powers and duties, and responsibilities, amending the Constitution can be a one solution.  The President shall be the Head of this council, and a member of the Council.  The President shall act on the advice of the Council. The President should handle and act on only one subject of the ministerial subjects.  The Prime Minister should be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers, and the President shall not be a member of the Cabinet. For this we have to consider following amendments.
[1]. If we so worry about reducing of executive presidential powers, it is easy for us to amend the Article: 4[ b] of the 1978 Constitution to read as:  [-see the proposed amendment below:],
Proposal to Amend Article:4[b] of the Constitution, 1978
Article:4[b]: Including the national defense,  people’s executive power shall be executed by the President elected by the people, through Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers [this Council is a proposed system under the concepts and objectives of the present article]. [This Article of Constitution can be amended without Referendum].
[2]. Amend Article: 43 [2] for giving power for the Prime Minister to act as the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers, and to increase responsibility in the Cabinet.
[3]. Amend Article: 43 [3] to enable the Parliament to nominate name of one MP in the Parliament to the President, to be appointed as the Prime Minister by the President.
[4].TO ESTABLISH “ THE EXECUTIVE ADVISORY COUNCIL”, there should be amendments to be included just below the Article: 42 [1].
[5]. More importantly, the powers, duties, and functions of the Prime Minister should be elaborated in the Article 43 in the Constitution.
All these amendments for reforms focused to reduce presidential power under the lines of foremost participatory democracy are to be worked out.
According to the on -going debates and talks, it is better to think more about decentralization of executive powers creating positions of 1. Vice President, and         2. Deputy Prime Minister.  It is better to amend the Constitution for the Parliament to nominate names of MPs for these two positions, and to the President to appoint them.  There is a possibility for MP of Tamil Nationality to become Vice President, and MP from other nationality to become Deputy Prime Minister.
The alternative idea to appoint Prime Minister through nomination of a name of a MP in the Parliament by the Parliament to be appointed as the Prime Minister is a valuable and timely proposal.  Needs to change Article: 43 [3].
Article: 43 [3].  The Parliament shall have power to nominate a name of one MP in the Parliament to the President who shall be appointed as the Prime Minister, and the President shall appoint that member of the Parliament as the Prime Minister.
The Major issue is a manner of presentation of “No Confidence” proposals against to the Prime Minister or to a Cabinet Minister to the Speaker by a MP or by a group of MPs.  The present system, as we have observed through media, a few members of MPs can present such no confidence proposals which harassed to dignity of that politicians.  The public do not aware of the mistakes, if it with the Speaker.  We Propose that at least approximately one half of the MPs in the Parliament should signed with their full name to such no-confidence proposals. Further, such a no-confidence proposal should be with well written document to prove the allegations of no confidence proposal, unless otherwise that proposal may be a media roaring under the political scam, with non-genuine facts BUT WITH ATTEMPTS to mislead citizens/voters.  In Sri Lanka this has become a media roaring, destroying the personnel characters of the politicians.
3.2 A MAJOR REFORM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXECUTIVE PRESIDENTIAL
POWERS IN SRI LANKA
This part of article includes the major device to handle the executive powers more democratic way.  One most powerful wing claims for the needy actions to rectify the executive presidential system under the lines of the foremost democratic approach.  Reformatory concepts and ideas have been explained and argued for: 1. Replacement of the executive presidential system to an executive parliamentary system, and 2. Need actions to amend the constitution to deduct some executive powers of the presidential system.  We can reform the system without replacing the elected Presidential system.   Elected Presidential system with executive Parliamentary system [hybrid system] is the most appropriate system compatible with our prevailing democracy.
If we desire to follow the deducing argument to amend the Constitution to reduce power of the President, we need to think about an alternative system.
3.3 THE EXECUTIVE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Since the Executive Advisory Council is represented by the most eminent Ministers, the President shall not have power to dictate at the Council or to make any attempt to overrule the decisions of the Council, or to criticize the functions of the Council, or to hold the harmful media conference against to the Council.   In addition, “The Executive Advisory Council” shall have power to review the functions of the Constitutional Council and other Commissions established under the provisions of the Constitution and report to the Parliament.   The Parliament may with due consideration of such reports take remedial actions by passing a resolution in the Parliament.  On request made by the Executive Advisory Council, the Constitutional Council and the Commissions may provide advice as directed upon them, to the Executive Advisory Council.
In such occasions, i.e., if the Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers are not appointed, or not in function, the President shall exercise executive powers until the Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers are appointed.
 A higher level council such as: a Executive Advisory Council can be an alternative hand to use for modification of the execution system. The following model of an alternative system is proposed for further reasoning.  For this, it needs to amend, first the Article:4[b], and the Chapter VIII of the Constitution as “Chapter VIII, Executive: The Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers”; and  the Article/Clause 42 of the Constitution as proposed below:
We assume that Article: 42 [1] is to be existing there in the Constitution.
42[2] There shall be an Executive Advisory Council charged with the advice to the President, and the President shall act on the advice of the Executive Advisory Council in exercising powers, duties and actions under the Constitution and other law.  The President shall be a member of the Council and Head of the Council. The president shall appoint members to the council following the procedure indicated in subsection [3] below.
42 [3] Members of the Council shall be appointed and consisted as follows:
                1. The President,
                2. The Prime Minister,
                3. The Speaker,
                4. Leader of the Opposition, and one of  MPs nominated by him,
                5. The President nominated three Cabinet Ministers,
                6. The Prime Minister nominated Three Cabinet Ministers,
                7. Minister of Defense,
                8. Minister of Foreign Affairs,
                9. Minister of Home Affairs,
                10. Minister of Finance,
                11. Minister of Economic Development,
                12. Minister of Justice,
                Following Ex-Officio members shall be appointed by the President,
                13. Chief Justice,
                14. Governor of the Central Bank,
                15. Auditor General,
                16. Secretary to the Minister of Defense,
                17. Secretary to the Treasury,
                18. Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Development and Planning, and
                19. Attorney General
The Ex-officio members shall not vote in the Council. The Ex-Officio members should attend to the meetings of the Councils if the President called them to present to the Council.
3.4 POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Executive Advisory Council shall have following powers:
[1]. The Executive Advisory Council is responsible to the Parliament in exercise of powers, duties, and due responsibilities.  In the case of matters which are not clearly expressed and written in the Constitutional law and in existing law, the Council may submit reports to the Parliament and receive general opinion of the Parliament.
[2]. The Executive Advisory Council shall act in cohesion with mutual understanding for the benefit of the executive government.   The President shall have power to review proposals submitted to the Council, and submit review papers and proposals to the Council.  The President may not retain with him to review or study any proposal submitted to the Council for more than one week.  The President shall act on the decisions or proposals approved by the Council.
[3] The Executive Advisory Council shall exercise powers to advice the President and the President shall act on the advice of the Executive Advisory Council.  The President shall not have power to dictate at the Council or to make any attempt to overrule the decisions of the Council, or to criticize the functions of the Council, or to hold the harmful media conference against to the Council.    Provided that the President shall have power according to his opinion to rule out any advice on some subjects, such as, on the subjects of defense, national security, and the control and management of the public property and public enterprises including Boards, Authorities, and Corporations.  But, in such decisions of the President, the Parliament shall have power to overrule the President’s decision by passing resolution in the Parliament. 
[4]. In such occasions, i.e., if the Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers are not appointed, or not in function, the President shall exercise executive powers until the Executive Advisory Council and the Cabinet of Ministers are appointed.
 [5]. The Executive Advisory Council shall confer special power to the President to dictate Presidential power only on the subject of national defense in an emergency, and use of such powers and advice of the Council shall not be questioned in any court of law, and such advice shall not be exercised more than three weeks since the date of advice is granted.
[6]. The Executive Advisory Council shall prepare norms, rules, regulations and procedures to assure the defense of the State, and to secure freedom and right of the public, and national/ethnic integration; and furthermore, shall prepare and formulate rules, regulations and procedures, under the provisions of  Article 15  [1], [2], [3], [4], [7], and Article 16 of the Chapter Three of the Constitution of 1978, and under the any other existing law, to prevent the public and the prevention and operation of governance defending from the organized aggressive and violent,  and non- genuine movements and organizations, including aggressive  hypocrisy and politically biased non-rightful trade unions and media.
[7]. The Executive Advisory Council shall have power to advice to the Cabinet of Ministers on the subjects of foreign affairs, foreign economic and political relations, national economic development, planning and plan implementation, international trade, control of public enterprises, and public properties,  industrial development, environment  and agriculture.
[8]. The Executive Council shall have power to involve in formulation of State policy, economic policy, and international trade affairs, and any other matter in the context of social well- being and the national economic development.
[9]. The members of the Executive Council shall have right  to review any matter presented for cabinet approval, and report and advice to the President to suspend or alter such adverse proposals and any such Cabinet approvals,  subject to the provisions of this article.   In addition, the Executive Advisory Council shall review and make comments on the proposals and approvals of the Cabinet of Ministers.
[10]. The Executive Advisory Council shall have power to review existing law, matters of securing public security and freedom  and judicial procedures, and shall report to President and to the Parliament with status reports.
[11] The Executive Advisory Council shall go hand in hand with the Cabinet of Ministers on the subjects of foreign policy, international relations in economic development and modernization, foreign investments, and economic growth.
[12] The President shall execute and exercise powers, duties and functions vested in the President by the Constitutional Law provided in the Chapter  XVIIA, on the establishment of the Provincial Councils[from Article 154a – 154s of the Constitution].
[13]. The Executive Advisory Council shall have power to advice to the President to suspend any directive given by the Chief Ministers in the Provinces to the Deputy Inspector General of the Provincial Police, if that order of directive is incompatible and breaking of the existing law.
[14]. The Executive Advisory Council shall have power to advice to the President in any matter in the context of the operational system of the Provincial Councils, and at a time of such matter is arisen to change the Chief Ministers of the provincial Councils.   Whatever provision given in the Constitution in contrast to this provision, this provision shall be read as enforceable, active and valid.   The Executive Advisory Council shall submit letters and documents to the Parliament, when the Council thinks and concerns such letters and documents are necessary to be discussed before the parliament.
[15]. No institution administering justice and likewise no other institution, person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to inquire in to, pronounce upon or in any manner call in question any act or omission on the part of the President, or the Executive Advisory Council or any member of the Council on the ground that the provisions of the sub sections of this Article have not been compiled with.
[16].  The Presidential Secretary shall act as the secretary to The Executive Advisory Council, and the Executive Advisory Council may have to be operated as a part of the Presidential Secretariat,  and
[17]. The discussions, minutes and any other information of the meetings of the Executive Advisory Council shall not be released to the press, to media and to any other person, or to any other organization without precise approval of the President or of the Prime Minister.  Such act shall be offensive and punishable by any court of law.  An attempt for distortion of the information of the meetings of the Executive Advisory Committee shall be a fraud attempt and punishable by any court of law. 
IF WE THINK OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO REDUCE VETO POWER IN EXXECUTIVE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM, IT IS TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT WITHOUT REPLACING ELECTED PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM.  IN THE SUBJECTS  OF MINISTRIES, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD KEEP ONLY ONE SUBJECT, PERHAPS MAY BE “SUBJECT OF DEFENCE”.  DOES THE PRESIDENT HUMBLY ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL??.

In addition, amendments to Article 43[2] and 43[3] are needed in the case of the Prime Minister’s position.
IN 20TH AMMENDMENT, COMPULSORILY AND STRICTLY WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT AMEMDMENTS TO FOLLOWING ARTICLES, IF WE ARE ON FOR AMENDMENT TO REDUCE PRESIDENTIAL POWER:
Following Articles should be amended.
1.       Article: 43 [2] should be amended: replace it and substitute with following sentence:
Article 43 [2]. The Prime Minister shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers, and the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers.   The Prime Minister shall be in the charge and exercise of the subjects of planning, promotion of foreign investments, and national economic development.
2.       Amendment of Article: 43 [3] to change the system of appointing Prime Minister.
Article: 43 [3] should be abolished to enable Parliament to nominate a MP to be appointed as the Prime Minister and should be substituted with following sentence:
“Article: 43 [3].  The Parliament shall have power to nominate a name of one MP in the Parliament to the President who shall be appointed as the Prime Minister, and the President shall appoint that member of the Parliament as the Prime Minister”.

Article: 43 [3].  The Parliament shall have power to nominate a name of one MP in the Parliament to the President who shall be appointed as the Prime Minister, and the President shall appoint that member of the Parliament as the Prime Minister.

IF WE CHANGE THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.  THE WINNING CANDIDATE AT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RECEIVE MORE THAN 50 PER CENT OF THE VALID VOTES.  THE AMENDERS SHOULD TAKE IN TO NOTICE THIS ISSUE.

Furthermore, new provisions are required to follow the procedure to remove President from office, in the case of attempting not to comply with the Constitution.  An example can be drawn from the 1972 Constitution.

3.5  PROCEDURE FOR REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM THE OFFICE
This method [given in 1972] cannot be applied to remove the elected President.  But, we can use alternative method in association with this method.  For example, if the Prime Minister prepares a resolution proposal to remove the President from his office, that proposal should be written well with genuine reasons of such resolution, and the Speaker has to submit that resolution documents to the Supreme Courts for justification of the impeachment proposals.   If the Supreme Court has justified that the resolution of impeachment has acceptable reasons, the Parliament can pass that resolution for removing the President from the Office of the President.  This proposal seems to be democratic and assuring the supreme Power of the Parliament.
If we amend the Constitution to reduce the executive powers of the elected President, it needs to amend the procedures removing the President from his office.
If the elected President did not act on the advice of the Executive Advisory Council, the President should remove by resolution passed by the Parliament.  In the 1972 Constitution powers given to Parliament to remove the president: If the President failed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, no one go before courts.  Article 27[2] says, “No institution administering justice and likewise no other institution, person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to inquire in to, pronounce upon or  in any manner call in question any act or omission on the part of the President on the ground that the provisions of subsection  [1] of this section have not been complied with”.   The only thing in such occasion can do is to act according to the Article 26 [2], under the conditions of the office of President of the Republic of Sri Lanka becomes vacant.
This method cannot be applied to remove the elected President. But, we can use alternative method in association with this method.  For example, if the Prime Minister prepares a resolution proposal to remove the President from his office, that proposal should be written well with genuine reasons of such resolution, and the Speaker has to submit that resolution documents to the Supreme Courts for justification of the impeachment proposals. If the Supreme Court has justified that the resolution of impeachment has acceptable reasons, the Parliament can pass that resolution for removing the President from the Office of the President.  This proposal seems to be democratic and assuring the supreme Power of the Parliament.

According to the Constitution of 1972, the appointed President was the Head of the state, Head of the Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces [see Chapter VII, Article 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 on the powers and functions of the President]. 
              According to the Article 27 [1], the president should act on the advice of the Prime Minister.   If the President failed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, no one go before courts.  Article 27[2] says, “No institution administering justice and likewise no other institution, person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to inquire in to ,pronounce upon or  in any manner call in question any act or omission on the part of the President on the ground that the provisions of subsection  [1] of this section have not been complied with”. 
                   The only thing in such occasion what can do is to act according to the Article 26 [2],  under the conditions of the office of President of the Republic of Sri Lanka becomes vacant.  According to this condition, the President can be removed on the National State Assembly passing a resolution of no-confidence against the President, proposed by the Prime Minister. 
Written by Dr. Dharmadasa Tennakoon
EX. SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW AT HARTI, COLOMBO.
Edited on 12.05.2018
This Article Published in website:  <vanniculture.blogspot.com>
Address: Dr. D. Tennakoon. No.6/27  Menik Watta, Kalalgoda, Pannipitiya.
Telephone: 070 262 9584