The government is expected to approve a decision Sunday that would allow it to advance decisions and legislation without the approval of the attorney general’s office, despite strong objections from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who says the move is unlawful.
The proposal would mark a sharp break from long-standing practice, in place since the founding of the state, under which the government is required to act in accordance with binding legal opinions issued by the attorney general.
The move comes as the Knesset Constitution Committee is separately advancing legislation sponsored by lawmaker Simcha Rothman that would split the role of the attorney general. Under that proposal, legal opinions would no longer be binding and would instead be treated as advisory.
Legal experts say the Cabinet decision is likely to be overturned by the High Court of Justice, citing previous rulings that require the government to follow the attorney general’s legal guidance in order to comply with the law.
In a formal legal opinion published ahead of the vote, Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon warned that decisions made during Cabinet meetings have “enormous influence on the public,” affecting core areas including security, health, welfare and the allocation of public funds.
“For a considerable time, we have witnessed severe disruption of proper government work processes,” Limon wrote. He cited the promotion of unprepared proposals, including initiatives raised during Cabinet meetings without urgency, the advancement of measures lacking factual or legal foundations, and what he described as disregard for professional assessments and legal opinions, contrary to the law.
Limon said the proposal would entrench and worsen those practices. He warned it would cause “serious harm to the public” and create broad conditions for unlawful government action, abuse of authority and improper use of public funds.
He also pointed to the timing of the initiative, noting that it is being advanced three years after the government was formed and only months before an election period. Such circumstances, he said, require heightened caution to prevent the weakening of safeguards designed to restrain the use of governmental power for purposes unrelated to the public interest.
The proposed decision would fundamentally alter government operations by formally allowing action without legal oversight, both in approving Cabinet decisions and in advancing primary and secondary legislation.
According to Limon, the cumulative effect would undermine the integrity, efficiency and professionalism of government work and open the door to the adoption of unlawful decisions.
Although presented as a technical amendment to the government’s rules of procedure, Limon said the implications are far broader. He described the move as a retreat from the obligation to act in accordance with the law and a dismantling of safeguards meant to uphold the rule of law and the proper functioning of the public service.
“The proposal effectively seeks to turn key elements of the attorney general’s work into optional components — ones that can be bypassed or treated merely as recommendations,” Limon wrote.
He said the accelerated promotion of the measure, without a comprehensive professional review, further intensifies concern. Advancing such a sweeping change shortly before an election period, he warned, requires particular restraint to avoid weakening checks and balances.