LLB 101B NOTES 4 JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICT

Islamic Position in M’sia

[Statutes]
FC Art 4 Supreme Law of the Federation | FC Art 4(1) FC = Supremacy Law of Federation
FC Art 3 Religion of the Federation | FC Art 3(1) Islam → Official Religion of Federation
i. Mere ceremonial purpose
Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] Salleh Abbas FC Art 3 → Strictly Ritual & Ceremony
ii. × Exclusive
Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] Salleh Abbas √ Civil Law √ Mandatory Death
Sentence
iii. × Absolute Religion
Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] Salleh Abbas M’sia = √ Secular State; × Islamic State

FC Art 11 Freedom of Religion

 FC Art 11(1) Everyone’s Right to Profess ∙ Practice ∙ Propagate; except FC Art 11(4)
 FC Art 11(4) Control / Restriction of Fed vs Propagation of Religious Doctrine / Belief among Muslims

FC Sch 9 Legislative List, List 2 State List 1 Islamic Law → State / SLA Jurisdiction
 State Matters → Islamic Law ∙ Personal & Family Law of Muslims
 Succession ∙ Testate & Intestate ∙ Betrothal ∙ Marriage ∙ Divorce ∙ Dower ∙ Maintenance ∙ Adoption ∙
Legitimacy ∙ Guardianship ∙ Gifts ∙ Partitions ∙ Charitable & Religious Trusts ∙ Appt of Trustees & Incorporation
of Persons to Islamic Religious & Charitable Endowments Institutions, Trusts, Charities & Charitable
Institutions operating wholly within the State ∙ Malay customs (Zakat, Fitrah, Baitulmal) or similar Islamic
Religious Revenue ∙ Mosques / Islamic Public Places of Worship ∙ Creation & Punishment of Offences by
Muslims Against Islam
 Except KL ∙ Labuan ∙ Putrajaya
FC Sch 9 Legislative List, List 1 Federal List 4 Civil & Criminal Law ∙ Procedure ∙ Administration of Justice
 Jurisdiciton of Civil Law & Criminal Law Proceedings
 FC Sch 9, List 1, 4(a) Constitution ∙ Organisation of All Courts Except Syariah Court
 FC Sch 9, List 1, 4(e)(ii) Exclude Islamic Personal Law → Marriage ∙ Divorce ∙ Guardianship ∙ Maintenance ∙
Adoption ∙ Legitimacy ∙ Family Law ∙ Gifts ∙ Succession ∙ Testate ∙ Intestate
 FC SCn 9, List 1, 12(a) Exclude Reg. of Adoption under Islamic Law / Malay Custom
Except FC Sch 9 Legislative List, List 1 Federal List matters; Federal can interfere PROVIDED: -
 Offences triable by Federal Law
 Control of Propagation of Doctrines ∙ Beliefs among Muslims – FC Art 11(4)
 Determination of Islamic Law & Doctrine Matters ∙ Malay Custom
FC Art 121(1A) Separation of Civil & Syariah Court Powers
 FC Art 121(1) HC of Malaya & HC of Borneo – Judicial Power of M’sia
 HC of Malaya & HC of Borneo ≠ Jurisdiction on matters within Syariah Court Jurisdiction
 Divide Authority btw Civil Court & Syariah Court
 Strengthens Syariah Court jurisdiction by explicitly prohibiting Civil courts on interfering matters within
Syariah Court jurisdiction
Courts of Judicature Act 1964
 CJA 1964 S23 HC → General Civil Jurisdiction solely by Federal
 CJA 1964 S24 HC → Specific Civil Jurisdiction solely by Federal
Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976
 Civil Law governs Non-Muslim
 LRA1976 S3(3) LRA1976 ≠ Applicable to Muslim / Anyone Married under Islamic Law
 LRA1976 S3(4) LRA1976 ≠ Applicable to Borneo Natives / Marriage & Divorce governed by Native Customary
Law in West M’sia
 LRA1976 S51 Sole Petition to Divorce → When one of the spouses converts to Islam after Marriage
 LRA1976 S51(A) Joint Petition to Divorce → When one of the spouses converts to Islam after Marriage
[Cases]
Shaik Abdul Latif & Ors v Shaik Elias Bux [1915] Edmond JC Islamic Law = Only Law of State Before British Arrival
 Mohammedan “Islamic Law” modified by local custom: -
 Only applicable law to Malays in Malay States before British Administration arrival
Ramah v Laton [1927] Thorne J English J: Position/Status of Syariah (Islamic) Law in M’sia as Law of the Land
 Dispute: Distribution of deceased husband’s asset btw 2 wives
 English Civil Law: Only Monogamy Marriage → Distribution of Asset to 1st Wife only
 Islamic Law : Polygamy Marriage Allowed → Distribution of Asset to Both Wives
 Held : Islamic Law = × Foreign (Alien) Law but √ Law of the Land
: Parties Involved = Muslims
: Islamic Law Prevail
Anchom Binte Lampong v Public Prosecutor [1940] Islamic Law → Valid Law during British Colonisation
Hussin Bin Mandot v Public Prosecutor [1940] Islamic Law → Valid Law during British Colonisation
 Ascertained Validity ∙ Position of Islamic Law in Malaya States; though being relegated from English Law

Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] | Salleh Abbas M’sia = √ Secular State; × Islamic State
 A → Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Drug Trafficking → Mandatory Death Sentence
 A (Muslim) argued Death Sentence → Unconstitutional Against FC Art 3 & FC Art 4
 FC Art 3 → Upholding Islam as the Religion of the Federation
 FC Art 4 → FC as Supreme Law of the Land
 A → Punished (hudud) under √ Islamic Law ∙ × Civil Law
 hudud → Drug Offences ≠ Mandatory Death Sentence
 Held : M’sia = √ Secular State; × Islamic State
: FC Art 3 → Strictly Ritual & Ceremony
: √ Civil Law √ Mandatory Death Sentence
Meor Atiqulrahman & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors [2000] FC Art 11 & FC Art 3 ≠ School Dress Code
 3 Expelled Muslim Students → Refused to remove “Serban (Turban)” in school; Against School Dress Code
 P Argued Removal of “Serban” ≠ FC Art 11 Freedom of Religion & FC Art 3 Islam Religion
 HC Held : FC Art 11 & FC Art 3 Prevail | School should protect & promote Islam
 COA & FC Held : FC Art 11 & FC Art 3 ≠ Applicable over small matter such as dress code
: “Serban” → Nothing to do with Islam
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Law – Validity

Public Prosecutor v David John White alias Abdul Rahman [1940] | Horne J Polygamous Marriage & Divorce
 P (Married) → Convert Muslim → Marry 2nd Muslim Wife against PC S494 Bigomy
 PC S494 Bigomy / Polygamous Marriage = Offense | × Allowed in Civil Marriage
 P Argued → Converted Muslim allowed to have multiple wives
Held : PC (Civil Law) Prevails; Not Islamic Law
Jursidictional Conflict Before 1988
Myriam v Mohamed Ariff [1971] Child Custody
 Ex-Wife → Custody of Children → Ex-Husband
 Ex-Wife → Remarried → Sought Custody of Children
 Syariah Law : Ex-Wife ≠ Custody of Children when Remarry
 Civil Law : Ex-Wife = Custody of Children when Remarry
 Ex-Wife → Filed HC (Civil Court) → Overturn Syariah Law
o Held : Ex-Wife = Custody of Children → Syariah Law Overturned
o Result : Civil Court → Asserted Influence over Syariah Court → Confusion
: On 1988 FC Amended → FC Art 121(1a)

 FC Art 121(1A)
o HC Malaya ∙ HC Borneo ≠ Jurisdiction over Syariah Court Matters
o Before 1988 : Civil Court = Influence Syariah Court Matter
o After 1988 : Civil Court ≠ Inlfuence Syariah Court Matter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
√ Jurisdictional Conflict After 1988
Shahimin Faizul Kung bin Abdullah v Asma binti Haji Junus [1991] – Ineffective Effect after JC
Dispute of Child Custody (Overruled by Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992])
 Dispute of Child Custody btw Chinese Converted Muslim Husband (P) and MIL (D)
 Child → Taken Care by MIL after passing of wife
 HC (Civil) Held → Custody of Child ≠ Restricted to Syariah Court Jurisdiction
 HC (Civil) Decision → Encroached Islamic Family Law Governed by Syariah Court despite FC Art 121(1A)
 HC (Civil) Decision → Created Jurisdictional Conflict until it was Overruled
Failure of SL to Confer Jurisdiction:
Ng Wan Chan v Majlis Ugama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor (No. 2) [1991] – Ineffective Effect after JC
Religion Status of Deceased at Time of Passing ≠ Syariah Court Jurisdiction
 P (Non-Muslim) → Recover Deceased Husband Body (Converted Muslim)
 P → Demanded Deceased Husband Body | Claiming Husband = Buddhist at time of passing
Held : FC 9th Sch List 2 (State List) Item 1 ≠ inc Adjudication of Syariah C. on Religion Status of a person at
time of passing
: P = Recover Body of Deceased Husband
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
× Jurisdictional Conflict After 1988
Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah Bukit Mertajam & Anor [1992]
Renouncing Islam = Syariah Court Jurisdiction
 P (Non-Muslim) → Recover Unclaimed Deceased Son Body (Converted Muslim) in Hospital
 P → Demanded Public Declaration that Deceased Son ≠ Muslim at time of passing
 June’91 → P Converted Islam & Registered | Sept’91 → Renounced Islam | Oct‘91 → P Passed Away
Held : Deceased Son → Renounced Islam w/out Syariah Court Approval
: P ≠ Recover Body of Deceased Son
Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992]
If Law is Covered By Islamic Law → Look for Syariah Court
 D → Restraining Order from HC (Civil) Against → P for Domestic Violence
 Islamic Family Law Act 1984 S127: Accusation of Domestic Violence ∙ Injuction ∙ Restraining Order
 HC (Civil) Held → Beyond HC (Civil) Jurisdiction | D → File to Syariah Court
Implied Conferment of Jurisdiction:
Soon Singh A/L Bikar Singh v Pertubihan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah & Anor [1999]
Renouncing Islam = Syariah Court Jurisdiction
 P → Converted & Reg. Muslim when minor w/out parent’s consent (Procedural Error)
 P → Wanted to Renounce Islam
Held : Renounce Islam → Impliedly Islamic matter as per FC 9th Sch List 2 (State List) Item 1
: Renounce Islam → Syariah Court Jurisdiction

Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor [2004] | Faiza Tamby Chik J
Renouncing Islam = Syariah Court Jurisdiction; Not Civil Court
 Muslim → Convert / Murtad (Keluar Islam) → Christian
 JPN → Rejected P From → Change Name → Joy Lelani
 Fiance = Christian
 Believe in Christian
 Practice Christian
 P Argued Rejection of Islam Conversion ≠ FC Art 11 Freedom of Religion
HC Held : Freedom of Choice ≠ Freedom of Religion | FC Art 11 ≠ Applicable
: FC Art 121(1A) = Murtad (Islam Matters) → Exclusively Syariah Court Jurisdiction; not Civil
Court
Powers of Jurisdiction:
Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai v Shaik Zolkaffily Bin Shaik Natar & Ors [2003]
Distribution of Land of Muslim = Syariah Court Jurisdiction
 Donor → Donate Land → Majlis Ugama Islam
 D (Family Member of Late Donor) → Sought to Recover Land ∙ Demanded Rightful of Executors of Estate
 HC Held: Distribution of Land of Muslim = Syariah Court Jurisdiction
Disputes of Non-Muslim:
Subashini A/P Rajasingam v Saravanan A/L Thangathoray & Anor [2008]
 Husband → Converted Muslim & Converted 1st Child to Muslim
 Procedural Error → Conversion of Minor requires Consent of Both Parents
 Husband → Divorce in Syariah Court
 Procedural Error → Marriage Registered under LRA1976 → Divorce under LRA1976
 Syariah Court → Temporary Custody over 1st Child Converted to Muslim
 Muslim child should be placed under care of Muslim parent
FC Held : P → Filed Application Before Allowed Period
: Dismissed 1st Child Conversion ∙ 1st Child Custody under Technical Application

Indira Gandhi A/P Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam & Ors [2018]
 Husband → Converted Muslim & Converted 3 Children to Muslim w/out Wife’s Knowledge
 Husband → Sought Custody of 3 Converted Children from Syariah Court & Fled
o Conversion → Shahada: Declaration (Arabic) to Islam & Prophet Mohamad = Messenger of God
o Require Recitation of Shahada with understanding & own free will
 Children didn’t recite Shahada – Procedural Error
o Require Consent of Parent(s) in writing for minor conversion
 If Both Parents are Alive & Product of Civil Marriage → Consent of Both are Required
 FC Art 12(4) + Parent defined in FC 11th Sch Art 16(1) S2(61) → Parent can be Plural
 Mother has no knowledge | Mother didn’t consent to conversion – Procedural Error
 Wife → Sought to Nullify Conversion ∙ Recover Custody of 3 Converted Children
 HC Lee Swee Seng J Held : Unilateral (Single Parent) Conversion of Children by Syariah Court ≠ Valid
(Procedural Error)
 FC Held : Nullify Conversion of Children
Disputes of Apostasy: Coversion Out from Islam
Kamariah bte Ali & Ors v Government of Kelantan & Anor [2005] Murtad | Apostacy | Leaving Islam
 1998 | P → SD that P no longer Muslim (Murtad)
 2000 | P → Imprisoned for Syariah Criminal Offence – Spreading Religion Practice Against Islam on 1992
 P Defended P ≠ Muslim & P ≠ Charged under Syariah Criminal Offence
 Held : P → Committed Offence as Muslim in 1992
: Punishment → Valid
Fused Civil & Islamic Matter:
Abdul Shaik bin Md Ibrahim v Hussein bin Ibrahim [1995]
 D (2nd bro) → Adopted Daughter of P with Condition (1st bro)
 If D conceives own child | D → Surrender Adopted Daughter → P
 Registration of Adoption Act 1952 (Civil Law) → Adoption (Procedural Error)
o Registration of Adoption Act 1952 → Non-Muslim Only
 D conceived own child | D ≠ Surrender Adopted Daughter → P
 P → Sought to Invalidate Adoption ∙ Custody of Own Daughter
 HC Held: Adoption of Muslim Child ≠ Civil Matter but Syariah Matter → Adoption through Civil Law ≠ Valid
: Custody of Muslim Child = Syariah Court Jurisdiction
Fused Criminal Jurisdiction:
Penal Code v Syariah Criminal Law
 FC Art 74(1) P → Make Laws on 9th Sch Fed List (List 1) ∙ Concurrent List (List 3)
 FC Art 74(2) SLA → Make Laws on 9th Sch State List (List 2) inc. Islamic Law ∙ Concurrent List (List 3)
 FC Art 74(3) P & SLA → Exercise Powers within Allowed Lists
 FC Art 75 Fed Law v State Law | Fed Law = Prevail ∙ State Law = Void

 Penal Code ≠ Cover Syariah Criminal Law

 Penal Code (Fed Criminal Law) v Syariah Criminal (State Criminal Law) | PC = Prevail
 Penal Code → Applies to Muslim ∙ Non-Muslim
 If ≠ Covered in Penal Code → Refer Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965
o Max 3 Yrs Imprisonment / RM5000 Fine / 6 Whippings / Both
Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Malaysia & Anor [1999]
 P → Charged on Gross Indecency with another Muslim (Same Gender Sex)
 P → Charged on Penal Code ∙ Pleaded Guilty
 P → Argued Muslim Should be Charged on Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territory) Act 1997
COA : Gross Indecency = Penal Code | ≠ Exclusively Syariah Criminal Offence
: In absence of Penal Code | Syariah Criminal Offence serves as Filler
: Penal Code > Syariah Criminal Offences

Has FC Art 121(1A) Solved Jurisdictional Conflict?

1. One of the Disputed Parties ≠ Muslim
a. Deprive Civil Court Justice to non-Muslim – Indira Gandhi’s case
b. Do not live up the expectation of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) on the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – consent of both parties to convert minor is required.
c.
Answering Exam
1. Cases before 1988
a. Myriam v Mohamed Ariff [1971]
2. 1988 Amendment: Art 121(1A)
 a. Purpose – Avoid jurisdictional conflict between civil courts & Syariah courts
3. Cases after 1988 (include Indira Gandhi)
4. Effects - Has Art 121(1A) solved Jurisdictional Conflict?
a. Not 100% solved but reduced partially
b. Cases + Academic Views – derived from articles
c. Shahimin Faizul Kung bin Abdullah v Asma binti Haji Junus [1991]
d. Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992]
i. Resolved every quickly by Mohamed Habibullah
e. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor [2004]
f. Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah Bukit Mertajam & Anor [1992]
g. Subashini A/P Rajasingam v Saravanan A/L Thangathoray & Anor [2008]
h. Indira Gandhi A/P Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam & Ors [2018]
i. If FC Art 121(1A) has divided the powers clearly; why jurisdictional conflict still exist when
one of the parties is non-muslim?
i. Matters like apostasy cases remains heavily contested, countered by views that civil courts enjoy
concurrent jurisdiction, retaining their inherent jurisdiction to review religious courts
j. In Constitutional Landmarks in Malaysia: The First 50 Years, 197 at 202, Thio Li-Ann held that FC Art
121(1A) doesn’t entirely exclude supervisory review power of the High Court though Hassan Saeed
in Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (2004) had an objective view that FC Art 121(1A) has
indeed prevented judicial review by the High Court
k.

Essay Question Format:

1. Intro
a. Identify the focus of Q
b. Statement – State what your answer will be
2. Main Answer
a. Analysis
3. Conclusion
a. Summary of your main points
b. Confirm your stand