However, the distinction between illegality and irrationality (proportionality) remains less clear . A possible reason may be that the courts are frequently less systematic in their review and sometimes place greater attention on the “appealing” argument from the many other choices presented by the applicant, whether it relates to illegality or irrationality . Considering that irrationality concerns the substances of a decision that will allow an emphasis on the constitutional role of the judiciary, an unsystematic approach may not successfully uphold the rule of law as an important argument could be bypassed . For there to be sufficient accountability in public bodies, it can be contended the courts should first consider procedural impropriety and illegality since they are more concerned with the procedures that led to a decision, and only if the decision had passed the assessments, the court may rely on irrationality and proportionality
However, the distinction between illegality and irrationality (proportionality) remains less clear . A possible reason may be that the courts are frequently less systematic in their review and sometimes place greater attention on the “appealing” argument from the many other choices presented by the applicant, whether it relates to illegality or irrationality . Considering that irrationality concerns the substances of a decision that will allow an emphasis on the constitutional role of the judiciary, an unsystematic approach may not successfully uphold the rule of law as an important argument could be bypassed . For there to be sufficient accountability in public bodies, it can be contended the courts should first consider procedural impropriety and illegality since they are more concerned with the procedures that led to a decision, and only if the decision had passed the assessments, the court may rely on irrationality and proportionality