By a majority of six votes to one, the High Court of Justice has rejected a petition filed by social advocacy groups against the government decision in 2003 to cut welfare benefits as part of its emergency economic plan.
Yesterday`s ruling, however, fully recognizes the constitutional right to “dignified human subsistence,” the state`s obligation to ensure that its citizens enjoy this right, and the court`s authority to force the state to live up to its obligation.
“Our ruling is not designed to prevent any future petitions on citizens` right to a dignified existence,” wrote Chief Justice Aharon Barak in the majority ruling. “This is a constitutional right that must be upheld throughout the corridors of public law. The courts are empowered to enforce it. Faced with a sufficiently specific and well-grounded petition, it is the courts` duty to do so.
“We were unable to confirm the very grave claim put forward by the petitioners that there are people living in our country whose dignity has been harmed, simply because they are unable to earn enough to ensure a dignified subsistence; the state must examine this claim in depth. If there is any truth in the claim, the state must act to stamp out the phenomenon by all legal means.”
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the Movement for the War on Poverty and the Commitment for Peace and Social Justice organization filed the petition in January 2003, along with two private citizens – Bilha Rabinova and Yosef Padalon.
“We all stand by Ms. Rabinova, Mr. Padalon and many others like them,” wrote deputy Chief Justice Mishael Cheshin, adding that this was “not merely lip service. In this case, the judge finds himself before a person who is in pain and is asking for help. Only someone with a heart of stone would not feel, and judges` hearts are made of flesh and blood. We were asked to come to their assistance, and while it is incumbent upon us to obey the rules of the society in which we live, and we are obligated to overcome our feelings and, occasionally, our anger, we must not overstep the limitations placed upon us.”
During the three years that the High Court discussed this petition, it underwent many upheavals. At first, with a three-member panel of justices headed by Justice Dalia Dorner hearing the case, the High Court issued a ruling ordering the state to define a standard for “dignified human subsistence.”
After Dorner`s retirement from the bench, the case was transferred to a different panel, which focused on the petitioners` original demand – that the court issue a show cause order, forcing the state to explain why cuts to welfare benefits do not impinge on the right to a dignified human subsistence.
Although the High Court has ruled in the past on the constitutional right to dignified subsistence, this ruling expands and strengthens the High Court`s recognition of its own duty to enforce this right.
“A person`s right to dignity is the right to live his life as he sees fits, without financial distress forcing him into insufferable want,” wrote Barak. “This approach interprets the right to dignified human subsistence as the right to be guaranteed the basic material means to exist in the society in which one lives. It is the state`s duty to create a framework that will ensure a `safety net` for society`s poorest members, so that their material situation does not degenerate into the inability to ensure a dignified subsistence.”
According to Barak – whose majority opinion was backed by justices Cheshin, Dorit Beinisch, Ayala Procaccia, Eliezer Rivlin and Asher Dan Grunis – the courts have a right to impose this right on the state.
“If we find that despite a whole host of support networks operated by the state, that it is violating its citizens` right to a dignified subsistence, a person has the right to ask the High Court to order the state to provide him with the wherewithal to ensure a dignified subsistence.”
In this petition, however, the justices ruled that the petitioners “had not presented a proper factual basis” that would allow them to rule that the welfare cuts impinge on the right to a dignified subsistence.
According to Justice Edmond Levy, in the minority opinion, the petition should be upheld and some of the welfare cuts annulled.
“The right to a dignified subsistence is an integral part of human dignity,” he wrote. “It is impossible to overstate the importance of such a basic right.”
Levy gave the right a very wide definition, and ruled that it includes “the right to proper living conditions, not just to ensure that a person is not subject to insufferable deprivation.”
Levy criticized the state`s refusal to put a monetary value on “the last safety net.”
“I have a hard time accepting the state`s position,” wrote Levy. “The state negates any possibility of having judicial review of alleged damage to citizens` right to a dignified subsistence.”
last updated : 13/12/05
