Coram
Rev. Dr. Ezra Kok, JC President
Rev. Dr. Tie King Tai
Mr. George Lau
Rev. Ting Moy Hong
Ms. Jess Ling Jye Sing
Rev. Dr. Lau Hui Ming
Mr. Tan Foong Luen
Mr. Chang Jih Ren
Mrs. Daphne Sebastian Gopal

Declaratory Orders Sought
Declaratory Orders sought by Petitioner: 
1. Whether on the true interpretation of the Constitutional provision of Para 21 Article VI of the Methodist Discipline, a member of the Methodist Church who is not less than 21 years of age but aged 70 years and above is eligible to be a lay delegate to the General Conference.
2. Whether on the true interpretation of Para 1104.2, the said Para 1104.2 says that a member of the Methodist Church is ineligible to be a lay delegate to the General Conference by virtue of his/her age being 70 years.

Issue raised:
What is the governing criterion in deciding whether a member of the Methodist Church in Malaysia is eligible to be elected a lay delegate to the General Conference?  

Sub issues:
1. What is the meaning of "agency"
2. Is it constitutional to allow a person aged 70 years and above to be a delegate to the General Conference?

Declaratory Orders made by the Judicial Council of the Methodist Church Malaysia:- 1st Declaratory Order.

1st Declaratory Order
That on the true interpretation of Para 21 of the Constitution Article VI of the Methodist Book of Discipline, a member of the Methodist Church who is not less than 21 years of age is eligible to be a lay delegate to the General Conference although he may have attained the age of 70 years and above.

2nd Declaratory Order
That on the true interpretation of Para 1104.2, read in the light of Para 21 Article VI of the Constitution of the Methodist Book of Discipline, a member of the Methodist Church who has attained the age of 70 years and above is eligible to be a lay delegate to the General Conference.

Grounds Decision
Having heard the submissions of Mr. Peter Chen, Counsel for the Interested Party, the Judicial Council came to the following conclusions:

On a true reading of Para 21 Article VI of the Constitution as found in the Meth-odist Book of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as Para 21), it is clear beyond doubt that the said Para 21 imposes only a minimum age limit of 21 years for lay delegates from the Annual Conference to the General Conference and there is no mention of an maximum age limit insofar as restrictions on age is concerned. The issue became complex due to the inclusion of Para 1104.2 in the Methodist Book of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as Para 1104.2) which reads as follows:

"A member of any agency is eligible to serve provided that during the quadrennium for which he is elected to serve, his/her 70th birthday does not fall within it."

There appears to be, therefore, an apparent contradiction within the Methodist Book of Discipline.

In the course of submissions, Counsel addressed the issue of whether Annual Conferences are primary bodies or agencies within the Methodist Church. This was due to the fact that Para 1104.2 bars members of an agency from being eligible to serve if they had attained the age of 70 years in the quadrennium for which they are elected to serve.

Para 1102 of the Methodist Book of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as Para 1102) was referred to in support of the argument that the Annual Conference is not an agency as it is not included in the description of "agency" within the said Para 1102.

Counsel also submitted that since Para 21 is a constitutional provision, no rule can contradict the said Para and if it did it would be ultra vires the Constitution.

The Judicial Council came to the following findings in law after having perused the relevant Para as stated above as well as having heard the submissions of Counsel for the Interested Party and having received clarification from the Interested Party on relevant issues.

Findings
It is obvious that Para 21 deals with members from an Annual Conference who are elected as lay delegates to the General Conference. Whereas, Para 1104.2 deals with members from agencies which are described in Para 1102, but the said Para 1102 makes no mention of an Annual Conference as an agency.

The question arose whether the Annual Conference is not an agency for the purpose of Para 1104.2 and therefore the said Conference is not caught by the restriction on age found in Para 1104.2?

The Judicial Council firstly approached the issue from the perspective of a constitutional provision, that is Para 21, versus an administrative (and non-constitutional) rule which is Para 1104.2.

The Judicial Council concluded that Para 21 is a constitutional provision that allows lay members from the Annual Conference to be elected to serve as lay delegates to the General Conference provided they are not aged below 21 years of age. Para 1104.2 is an inferior law to the constitutional provision and cannot override the said constitutional provision. Judicial Council Decision 3 is a precedent which recognises that the Constitution is supreme and any inferior law which is inconsistent with the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand to the extent of its inconsistency.

Against this background of the legal standing of the two provisions, if in law and in fact the word "agency" in Para 1104.2 is defined to include Annual Conferences, such a conclusion will activate the use of the precedent of Judicial Council Decision 3 as Para 21 which is constitutional in nature will supersede Para 1104.2 and will render null and void Para 1104.2 to the extent it is inconsistent with Para 21.

But if the word “agency” in Para 1104.2 is defined as not including Annual Conferences, then there is no conflict between Para 1104.2 and Para 21 and the requirement on age limit will not apply to lay delegates from Annual Conferences.

However, the age limit in Para 1104.2 may apply to others who are by definition caught under the term "agency" as found in Para 1102. The question is, who are the "others" who may be affected by Para 1104.2?

It appears that everyone must of necessity belong to an Annual Conference. Some persons who belong to an Annual Conference may be the persons coming within Para 1102 because they fulfil the descriptions found in Para 1102 of being members of the bodies described in the said Para 1102, and thus eventually they may be termed to come within the term "agency" as described in the said Para 1102. Would these "others" be barred from holding posts in the said agencies if their 70th birthdays fall within the quadrennium, due to the imposition of the age limit imposed under Para 1104.2? On a simple reading of Para 1104.2 it would appear that they would be barred.

By logical inference, it would be illogical to allow the age limit in Para 1104.2 to stand against those who fall within the term "agency" as defined in Para 1102 as these very individuals sitting on councils, boards etc, may at any time be picked to represent the Annual Conference at the General Conference level as lay delegates as long as they meet the qualifications in Para 21. Are these individuals who became ineligible to serve these councils, boards etc, because they have turned 70 years of age, suddenly become eligible to be elected as lay delegates of the Annual Conference to the General Conference despite their age being 70 and above due to the present ruling made by this sitting of the Judicial Council?

The problem becomes more noticeable when it is realised that when members of “agencies” are barred from service because of the age limit in Para 1104.2, it will result in a reduction of candidates from the 70 year old age group to be selected to be lay delegate from the Annual Conference to the General Conference, although this was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution, as evidenced by Para 21.

The more valid argument from a perspective of constitutional law would be that there is no intelligible differentia between those serving on "agencies" and those chosen to be lay delegates to the General Conference, for an age limit to apply against those in "agencies", as both categories serve the church and all are equal in the sight of God and man. In this regard, the Judicial Council perused Paras 87(7) and 90 of the Constitution of The Methodist Church in Malaysia as found in the Methodist Discipline and found it consistent and clear in promoting the rights of the elderly and their dignity and this can only be done if they are treated equally with others who are allowed to serve the church.

Hence, both declaratory orders were allowed by this Council.            

Daphne Sebastian Gopal
Secretary,
Judicial Council of The Methodist Church in Malaysia.
21 July 2011