Pakatan Rakyat is set to file a motion in Parliament to censure the five-man Federal Court bench that unanimously convicted and sentenced Anwar Ibrahim to five years in prison on Feb 10 for sodomising his former aide.

The motion will be sent to the House speaker tomorrow, once Pakatan finishes collecting signatures from as many of its MPs as possible.

It will be filed by PKR's Kapar MP G Manivannan ( left ).

The motion will be tabled under Standing Orders 27(3) and 36(8), and also under Article 127 of the Federal Constitution, with the intention to "condemn the actions and conduct of the Federal Court judges".

This is similar to a motion filed after the Court of Appeal ruling convicting Anwar last year, which was not allowed to be debated in Parliament.

A motion before Parliament requires the signatures of at least one quarter of the members, or 55 MPs, to enable it to be immediately inserted into the order paper.

56 signatures collected as at 1pm

However, it will only appear in the order paper after a 14-day period, and thus it remains unclear whether such a motion would be debated anytime soon.

As at 1pm today, the motion had 56 signatories, Manivannan said. Despite fulfilling the minimum requirement, he is looking to collect signatures from more Pakatan lawmakers as before sending it to Pandikar. Pakatan has 86 MPs.

"The court decision was not ordinary, is not supported by law and is perverse in its logic," the motion states.

The Federal Court judges who on Feb 10 unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal conviction of Anwar and his five-year jail term are Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria, Raus Sharif, Abdul Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Ramly Ali. They are, in the motion, referred to as "the five judges".

Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia did not allow the previous motion, which had 63 signatures and aimed to condemn the three Court of Appeal judges, to be read the last time.

The motion appeared on the order paper on the final day of Parliament sitting and Pandikar gave priority to government affairs.

"If we are making allegations, this is a good opportunity for them (the government) to respond to these allegations. They don't have to block us from debating it," Manivannan said.