My Lady, as has already been stated, my name is Qaisara and I appear as junior

counsel for the defendant.

My Lady, I have one submission to make:

1. Whether or not the Interstate Travel Act 2020 is regarded as contradictory
towards ‘the liberty of the person’ and ‘freedom of movement’ in accordance with the
Federal Constitution.

If it pleases Your Ladyship I will begin with my first submission…

Jurists

First of all, we should have a look at the jurists opinion about the limitation of
freedom. According to Roscoe Pound, law protects various interest in the society.
One of the central tasks in any legal and political system is to combine order with
freedom whenever there is a conflict of interest which is individual, public and
society interest. When the individual and public interest clash with each other, the
judges needs to balance the value of each interest and decide how much freedom
should be allowed to the individual so that the State is safe, and the individual is not
duly constrained. Next, Rudolf Von Ihering asserted that society stands above the
particular individual. Thus, though the individual is enabled to desire his own
interest, his private interest must reconcile with the interest of the State. The reason
is because the end of the law is not to secure the goods of an individual, but to
secure the goods for the society.

Application

Regarding this case, we are referring to Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution
which mentions “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in
accordance with law”. Based on this, we cannot simply take whatever that is stated
because liberties in the context of the Federal Constitution still have its limitations. In
addition, the right to life and liberty is not an absolute right because it may be taken
away by the operation of law. In this case, the law had already been imposed by the
Parliament and it results in the restriction of movement. Therefore, the right of liberty
cannot be applied in this case because it has been taken away by the operation of
law. Hence, the Interstate Travel Act 2020 does not contradict the liberty of the
person in accordance with Federal Constitution.

Next, based on Article 9 (2) and (3), it is stated that “ Subject to Clause (3) and to
any law relating to security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public
health or the punishment of offenders” and in clause (3) “ So long as under this
Constitution any other State is in a special position as compared with the States of
Malaya, Parliament may by law impose restrictions, as between that State and other
States, on the right conferred by Clause (2) in respect of movement and residence.
As we can look here, Article 9 (2) permits the Parliament to limit the right of
movement and of residence on four grounds which are security, public order, public
health, or the punishment of offenders. Looking at the current situation of our
country, where we are in a pandemic, so we are all now being subjected to public
health. Furthermore, under Article 9 (3), Parliament may impose restrictions on
movement through the ‘Movement Control Order’. Moreover, Roscoe Pound state
that an individual’s freedom should be adjusted so that the State is safe and the
individual is not duly constrained. Hence, the Interstate Travel Act 2020 does not
contradict towards freedom of movement in accordance with the Federal
Constitution as it is introduced to prevent and curb the rise in infections of the
COVID-19 virus.

Conclusion

All in all, the Interstate Travel Act 2020 is not contradictory towards the ‘liberty of the
person’ and ‘freedom of movement’ in accordance with the Federal Constitution.

My Lady, it is for these reasons and also those given by my senior counsel that I
would urge you to dismiss this case. If Your Ladyship has no further questions, that
concludes my case on behalf of the defendants.

Duly constrained – means that the individual is not overly controlled by the
government