8/26/2020 Jupica vs Nec – Supreme Court of Liberia The foregoing position of this Court taken about two scores and a year ago, was confirmed in a more recent case: In re: Constitutionality of Legislative Joint Resolution, Leg.-002 (210), Supreme Court Opinion Special Session, October 11, 2010. We reconfirm that position today. As a judicial tribunal, we are not alone in our stance to decline to address political questions. The conditions which may trigger the political question doctrine and thus prevent a court from reviewing a case were spelled out by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), as follows: “Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 589 (1952), the United States Supreme Court stated that “policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government… are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Applying these standards to the case before us, we find that the issues raised by petitioners which in essence requires the determination of whether the time is ripe for the conduct of elections is an issue which this Court cannot decide. The determination of such issue falls within the purview of the political Branches of the Government; it involves policy choices which cannot be made by this Court, but are the proper role of the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government.   Even though we take due note that the virus has significantly reduced in the country, it is not our place to decide whether it is appropriate to conduct the elections at this time or at any time. This is a political question within the discretionary and administrative duties of the Executive and Legislative Branches. Hence, it would constitute usurpation of executive and legislative powers and therefore a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers for this Court to interfere in such matter. Article 34 of the Constitution provides in relevant part: “The Legislature shall have the power: i) to enact the election laws… ii) to make all other laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Republic, or in any department or officer thereof. Pursuant to this constitutional provision the Legislature, by a Joint Resolution authorized the conduct of the senatorial election on December 16, 2014. If this Court were to agree with the petitioners, grant their petition and restrain and enjoin NEC from conducting the pending special senatorial election on the date set, will this Court also have any authority to determine a new date for the holding of the senatorial election, if not, does this Court have any authority to compel the Legislative and Executives Branches of Government to decide a new date? We answer these questions in the negative. The judiciary of our country was created and empowered, specifically, to resolve justiciable issues and not to formulate policies and set standards, except in matters which involve legal disputes. The political question doctrine therefore restrains the courts from interfering in a matter that is purely comnetitsolutionsinc.org/toj/jupica-vs-nec-2/ 24/27