KUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — A federal court today ruled that a legal change introduced in 2013, which introduced a new pension system that adjusts pension payments by 2 percent each year, is unfavorable to pensioners and unconstitutional. It was reportedly declared that
according to news outlets Peeinga federal court ruled that the 2013 legislative changes concerning the pension adjustment system violated Article 147 of the Federal Constitution and declared these 2013 legislative provisions null and void.
advertisement
advertisement
Following today’s federal court ruling, this means that the old version of the law, including the old pension adjustment scheme, will be reinstated as the new amendments from 2013 are no longer valid.
A panel of five federal judges today unanimously dismissed the government’s appeal against the January 2022 Court of Appeal decision.
Peeing Chief Justice Datuk Mohammad Zabidin Mohd Dia of Malaya, who handed down the Federal Court’s ruling, said the pensioners in this case only have to prove that the new pension scheme is disadvantageous compared to the old scheme. I reported that I agreed not to have to show it. suffered losses under the new system.
The government said the pensioner in the lawsuit had not proven that she had actually suffered a loss due to the 2013 amendments, and that the 2013 amendments that introduced the new pension adjustment system were unfavorable to her. He claimed he couldn’t.
In today’s written judgment, the federal court disagreed with the government’s opinion, ruling that pensioners did not have to suffer “real losses” before being adversely affected.
A federal court has held that the fact that there is a “risk” that a more adverse situation may occur and the “mere possibility that it may agreed with the Court of Appeal that it was sufficient to show that
The panel, chaired by Chief Justice Tan Sri Aban Iskandar Aban Hasim of the Court of Appeal, said the other judges of the Federal Court were Chief Justices of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebri; They were Judges Datuk Seri Hasna Mohammed Hashim and Judges Datuk Rojaria Bhujan.
In the case, government retiree Amina Ahmad, along with 56 other retired civil servants, filed a lawsuit on an individual basis, naming the Malaysian government and the Director General of Public Services as defendants.
Amina and other pensioners had challenged the validity of amendments made in 2013 to the 1980 Pension Adjustment Act. With this amendment, the pension adjustment system was changed to a new system with an annual increase of 2%.
Amina and 56 others objected to the proposed amendments to Sections 3 and 7 of the Pension Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013, which amended Sections 3 and 6 of the Pension Adjustment Act. is.
Amina argued that the 2013 amendments made the pension adjustment system “unfavorable” to pensioners and violated Article 147 of the Federal Constitution, which protects pensioners from subsequent “unfavorable” pension laws. bottom.
Until the 2013 reforms introduced a new system with a 2% annual increase, the old system would adjust or increase the pension amount whenever there was a salary revision for civil servants (same grade as pensioners). .
Under the new system, even if an incumbent civil servant’s salary increases, it will not affect the total amount of pensions paid to pensioners, even if they are of the same grade.
Amina lost her case in the High Court on January 9, 2020, but won in the Court of Appeal last year.
On 13 January 2022, the Court of Appeal declared Articles 3 and 7 (as amended 2013) null and void as they violate Article 147 of the Federal Constitution, and also amended Articles 3 and 6 of the Pension Version declared invalid. The Adjustment Act as amended by the 2013 Amendments is void as it violates Section 147.
The Court of Appeal ordered the declaration to take effect no later than January 13, 2022.
A federal court today answered two major legal questions. The revised version of Sections 3 and 6 would violate Section 147 if the pensioner could not prove that the adjusted pension he actually received was economically disadvantageous compared to the previous law. Agreed.
This amendment made it possible to introduce a new system with the 2013 amendment.
The second broad legal question answered by the federal court today is whether the pre-amendment law will automatically be reinstated if the court revokes the amendment, and whether the pre-amendment law was deleted by Congress when it was amended. The legal schedule was whether or not it would change. Activated – This will also be automatically reinstated.
The federal courts also agreed on the second issue.
“Anyway, it is our view that the COA is correct in restoring the status quo, because when a court reverses a statute or amendment to a statute, the existing clause automatically reinstates itself. The Supreme Court said in its written judgment today:
In other words, a federal court today revoked the 2013 Amendment (which introduced a new pension adjustment scheme that increased by 2 percent each year) as unconstitutional and replaced the old version of the law (which included the old pension adjustment scheme that allowed existing civil servants to receive pensions). ) was revived. The pension amount of the pension recipient will also increase due to the salary revision).
