New legislation governing the way judges are appointed will come into effect after the Supreme Court found it did not breach the constitution.
The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill was referred to the court by President Michael D Higgins in October, the first time he had referred a bill under article 26 of the constitution.
The court's decision means the bill will be enacted into law and cannot be challenged again.
The arguments heard by the seven supreme court judges last month centred around part of section 51 of the Bill, which says the Government shall "only" consider a person for appointment as a judge from three names recommended by the judicial appointments commission.
Lawyers arguing against the Bill’s constitutionality told the court that this interfered with the Government’s power to appoint judges and with the independence of the judiciary.
They said it unconstitutionally reduced the Government’s role to a rubber stamp.
The court was also told the concept of "merit" in relation to recommending a person for appointment as a judge was "wholly undefined" in the legislation.
However, the Attorney General Rossa Fanning told the court the Bill was designed to enhance judicial independence by reducing political influence on judicial appointments after a robust screening process.
In its decision, delivered by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, the Court found the Constitution provided that there should be rules as to who can or cannot be made a judge and the Oireachtas is constitutionally obliged to legislate in respect of eligibility requirements.
Ms Justice Dunne said it could not be said that the constitution excluded all possible legislative regulation of the appointment procedure.
She said the court rejected the argument that the Bill impermissibly interfered with the power of the Government to nominate judges by obliging it to act only on the recommendations of the Commission.
She said the constitutional power and function of the Government was to advise the president to nominate a person for judicial office.
There was nothing in the new legislation which required the Government to nominate a person recommended by the Commission for appointment by the president.
The Government could still exercise a choice. If it was not satisfied to advise the President to nominate those recommended by the Commission, the judge said the selection process would have to start again.
She said the ultimate authority of the Government to make the final decision was preserved by the Bill as the Government was left with a meaningful choice about whether to accept or reject the Commission’s list or choose between those on the list.
The court also decided that the Bill set out a sufficiently clear view of what constituted "merit" in a judge and obliged the commission to implement that view in its selection criteria.
This was not an abdication of power but the conferral of a degree of discretion in a sufficiently narrow area of operation, in compliance with the constitution she said.
President Higgins said this afternoon that he had been advised by the Registrar of the Supreme Court that he may now proceed to sign the Bill into law.
In a statement, Áras an Uachtaráin added: "Given the vital importance of ensuring the constitutionality of judicial appointments, the President welcomes the Supreme Court's decision."
McEntee welcomes decision
Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has welcomed the decision to uphold the bill's constitutionality.
She said she would seek to establish the new Commission next year.
The Minister said the system of judicial appointments would be modernised to further strengthen gender balance and diversity on the bench.
And she said the tradition of a fully independent judiciary would continue to thrive and evolve under the new legislation.
Ms McEntee said the new legislation would ensure that the selection of nominees for judicial office would be through fair and open competition from the widest range of possible candidates.
Professor Oran Doyle, of the School of Law at Trinity College, said the new legislation would enhance public trust in the judiciary.
He said that historically there had been occasions when people wondered if someone was chosen for judicial office just because they were well known to the government.
Now, he said, the public would know that anyone nominated for appointment by the Government had also been approved as appropriate by an independent commission.
