Who must require correction of a defective constitutional petition, and may that authority be given to another justice?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file of this kind we read the constitutional petition as lodged, any notice from the Constitutional Court identifying the defect and setting the period for correction, the petitioner's reply filed within it, and any paper showing that the presiding justice entrusted one of the justices with the correction requirement.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading follows the provision's own words: where a constitutional petition is defective but the presiding justice of the Constitutional Court finds that it can be corrected, that justice shall require correction and shall set a reasonable period for it, and where that justice deems it necessary the authority to make the requirement may be entrusted to one of the justices, leaving the duty itself with the presiding justice.
Another reading stresses what the provision does not reach: it governs a petition already lodged and found defective, but it does not say what defect makes a petition defective yet correctable rather than incurable, nor what the correction requirement must state, so the file has to show which defect was identified and what was asked to be supplied.
Your judgment
If the defect goes to whether any constitutional claim exists at all, how could the file show that the presiding justice found it correctable rather than incurable?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to set what a correction requirement must contain, or if a Constitutional Court decision explains when a defective petition is still treated as correctable.