The constitution does grant jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases involving, among others, "the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament". However, the sentence which does so does not contain any explicit restriction denying other courts from handling such cases.
(excerpt from Constitution, Article 5)
As a consequence, this court interprets that the 3rd sentence of the excerpt is a grant of original jurisdiction, but not exclusive original jurisdiction, to the Supreme Court.
Under this interpretation, the Supreme Court retains its ability to review the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament, through means like appeals, Writs of Certiorari and cases being filed directly with the Supreme Court.
As the Defendant has also cited Article 1 bullet-point 10, I wish to remind them that these Article 1 protections are not absolute, but instead "[...] shall be subject to reasonable limits prescribed by the law."
On the matter of District Court jurisdiction, the Court Reformation Act §3.e states:
This statutory restriction on District Court jurisdiction repeats one of the same topics assigned to the Supreme Court ("removal from a Constitutional position") and adds two other restrictions ("treaties" and "Crimes Against the State"), but refrains from restricting the District Court's ability to hear cases challenging "the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament".
This combined with Court Reformation Act §3.a ("The District Court will be the first to hear cases. [...]"), represents a statutory granting of original jurisdiction on all other topics, including "the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament", to the District Court.
The Plaintiff also correctly pointed out that the District Court denying the District Court's jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament, by ruling the Court Reformation Act to be (partially) unconstitutional, would be self-contradicting.
In light of all these reasons, the court respectfully denies the Motion to Reconsider.
If the Defendant still insists that the District Court lacks the required jurisdiction for this case, they may file an appeal to the Supreme Court.
However, it is not certain when the Supreme Court will next have sufficient time and availability to respond to appeals.
Signed,
Hon. District Judge Iturgen "jotoho" Bolir
