The petitions filed by concerned citizens and advocacy groups challenged the Multiple Apartments Tax Arrangement (MATA) and its legislative procedures, arguing that they were not conducted in a transparent and fair manner. The MATA, with its provisions aimed at taxing multiple apartment owners, had significant economic and legal implications for property owners and the real estate market as a whole. Therefore, it warranted thoughtful and thorough debate to fully understand its potential ramifications. However, to the surprise and dismay of many, the Finance Committee’s debate on the MATA was scheduled to take place in the late hours of the night, a time when most Knesset members were unlikely to be fully alert and engaged. This scheduling decision raised concerns that the debate was being rushed, depriving the legislators of the necessary time to carefully review and consider such a serious bill. As a result, many felt that the democratic process was not being upheld, and that proper scrutiny and discussion of the MATA were being compromised.

Justice Sohlberg took note of it and held that the lack of opportunity to conduct a proper debate which violated the principle of participation and the circumstances surrounding the legislative proceedings of the Tax Arrangement in the course of the preparation of the bill by the Finance Committee for a second and third reading leads to the conclusion that there was a defect that went to the heart of the legislative process“.

It was proposed by the Respondents that a ‘warning of voidness’ would suffice but Sohlberg J. opined that a mere warning would be inadequate given the seriousness of the defect in the legislative process.

Ultimately, it was concluded that while the defect in the legislative procedure was substantial, its impact was limited to the Committee’s preparatory debates for the subsequent readings. Consequently, the corrective action should be targeted at rectifying these particular shortcomings, rather than discarding the entire legislative endeavor and beginning anew, which would result in more detriment than advantage.

Justice Sohlberg proposed that the Multiple Apartments Tax Arrangement be deemed relatively void, that is, the legislature could “return” to the legislative process from the stage of deliberation in the Finance Committee – the stage at which the defect occurred – and continue as required.

The majority of the judges concurred with Justice Sohlberg’s judgment. This significant judicial decision shed light on the inherent problems associated with accelerated legislative proceedings, bringing attention to the potential risks and implications of such processes. The Supreme Court applied transformative constitutionalism, by not adopting a narrower jurisprudence and acting as a guardian of the Knesset, in order to promote Israeli democracy.

In addition, it underscored the importance of allowing the opposition to play an active and substantive role in parliamentary proceedings, rather than being marginalized or reduced to a mere rubber stamp. Furthermore, the case served as a powerful reminder of the vital role of the Courts in safeguarding and upholding the democratic process, particularly in relation to the other branches of the government, ensuring the preservation of fundamental democratic principles and values.