Yael Willner
Judge
Judge Ruth Ronen:
I agree with the clear conclusion of my colleague the Vice President v. Solberg in his opinion. In my opinion, too, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a party of right in the law that is valid in the petition before us, in every aspect in which it can be examined. This is certainly when the respondents did not raise arguments in his favor.
Two short comments on my behalf.
First, my colleague based his opinion on both the procedural flaws in the law and the substantive flaws in it. I am of the opinion that these defects are intertwined, and it is not for nothing that the law suffers from these two types of defects. Thus, the procedural requirements for the enactment of a law of the Knesset are intended to enable a comprehensive and in-depth discussion of bills before they are passed, in order to ensure as much as possible that inappropriate pieces of legislation, inter alia because they do not meet the basic values of the State of Israel, will not be accepted by the Knesset.
In our case, it can be assumed that if the law had met the procedural arrangements, i.e., if the bill had been required to receive approval in a preliminary reading; If there had been a process of preparation for the first reading in its case afterwards, in the framework of which - a substantive public debate and discussion in the Knesset plenum as required; or if the bill had passed through the melting pot of orderly government staff work and the work of the committee itself - it would not have matured into the version that was ultimately adopted, with all its flaws and deficiencies.
Second, My colleague has determined - and I agree with this too - that the law disproportionately violates the right to equality. However, beyond this infringement, I am of the opinion - like my colleague Justice D. Barak-Erez (whose opinion has now been brought to my attention), that the law also violates the principle of the rule of law.