NGCOBO J parliamentary bill, and, even then, this Court may only do so where the President refers the bill to this Court pursuant to the provisions of section 79(4)47 of the Constitution. As section 167(4)(b) makes clear, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the provisions of the bill. [56] This Court has held that the Constitution contains clear and express provisions which preclude any court from considering the constitutionality of a parliamentary bill save in the limited circumstances referred to in section 79 of the Constitution.48 The fact that at the time when the High Court judgment was delivered the Sexual Offences Amendment Act had been promulgated, matters not. What matters is that when the High Court raised the constitutionality of these provisions, they were in bill form. As we pointed out in Doctors for Life, the “crucial time for determining whether a court has jurisdiction is when the proceedings commenced.”49 In the context of constitutional issues raised by the court of its own accord, the crucial time for determining jurisdiction is when the court raises the issue. Therefore the question 47 (d) decide on the constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution; (e) decide that Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation; or (f) certify a provincial constitution in terms of section 144.” Section 79(4) provides: “If, after reconsideration, a Bill fully accommodates the President’s reservations, the President must assent to and sign the Bill; if not, the President must either— (a) assent to and sign the Bill; or (b) refer it to the Constitutional Court for a decision on its constitutionality.” 48 Van Straaten v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2009] ZACC 2, 24 February 2009, as yet unreported, at paras 4-5; Doctors for Life above n 36 at para 43 and 1419A-C; President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v United Democratic Movement (African Christian Democratic Party and Others Intervening; Institute for Democracy in South Africa and Another as Amici Curiae) [2002] ZACC 34; 2003 (1) SA 472 (CC); 2002 (11) BCLR 1164 (CC) at para 26. 49 Above n 36 at para 57 and 1422H-A. 30