Amendments to organic bill don’t violate charter: CDC

By The Nation

 

CRITIC OF NLA MOVE TO DENY CITIZENS DIRECT APPROACH TO COURT OFFERS HIS OPINION

 

AMENDMENTS to clauses concerning ordinary citizens’ right to complain to the Constitutional Court over violations of their rights – which is guaranteed under the new charter – are unlikely to have violated the charter, Constitution Drafting Commission member Pattara Khumphitak said yesterday.

 

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) passed the new Constitutional Court organic bill, one of the 10 required by the new charter, on its second and third readings on Thursday. However, the CDC’s original clauses regarding the filing of complaints to protect people’s rights and freedoms were amended by the NLA.

 

On Friday, Pattara posted on Facebook, raising questions about how the bill, as passed, would protect people’s rights and freedom. Among the clauses he found objectionable was one that did not allow people who believed they had suffered an infringement of their rights to directly approach the Constitutional Court. 

 

According to Pattara, the CDC had drafted the bill in a way that allowed people to directly file complaints to the court, matching a provision in the charter that guarantees such a right.

 

However, these clauses were revised, requiring people instead to lodge complaints through the Ombudsman and other concerned agencies, including the Cabinet. Only if those agencies failed to respond would people be allowed to approach the court directly. Pattara said this could cause difficulties to people who were suffering an injustice.

This, Pattara pointed out in additional comments made late on Friday, would prolong the process. 

 

Pattara further explained that this might be interpreted as a sign that lawmakers did not want to see issues flood the court. But making complainants go through such a long process might be seen as a way to make them give up in their demands for personal justice.

 

Following the legal procedure, the draft bill will be submitted to the Constitutional Court and the CDC for further review as to whether it is constitutional. A joint committee could be set up in the event of one of the agencies disagreeing with the NLA draft. 

 

But Pattara said his initial view was that the amendment was unlikely to have violated the constitution as the stipulation in the charter states that the petition procedures would follow what is stipulated in the organic law. The NLA’s amendments are now part of the organic law. 

 

“The CDC has attempted to ensure this for them already, and I think people should not be rid of tools to help them demand the rights they deserve,” said Pattara.

 

Other potentially controversial amendment points are also contained in the passed bill. These include a stipulation that allows the court’s nine judges to remain in office despite not meeting the new qualifications set under the charter to determine their terms after the law is promulgated.

 

The court would also be empowered to impose temporary measures to prevent severe and irreparable damage and any foreseeable violence. 

 

After intense debate, the legislation was approved with 188 votes for and none against, with five abstentions. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30332506

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-26

'However, these clauses were revised, requiring people instead to lodge complaints through the Ombudsman and other concerned agencies, including the Cabinet. Only if those agencies failed to respond would people be allowed to approach the court directly. Pattara said this could cause difficulties to people who were suffering an injustice.' The cabinet has no legal capacity as a mediator? Such a process may give a heads up so those involved at the stick end have time to prepare and even file a counter suit. A dangerous law.

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

After intense debate, the legislation was approved with 188 votes for and none against, with five abstentions. 

None against ? Bit high that figure

38 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

None against ? Bit high that figure

The fact that there are so many yes men of the current government is terrifying.  It just seems like they are just guardians of the rubber stamp.  It is hard to take what they do seriously. 

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

But Pattara said his initial view was that the amendment was unlikely to have violated the constitution as the stipulation in the charter states that the petition procedures would follow what is stipulated in the organic law.

Reads like a candy licorice twist.

If the organic law violates the Constitution, the Constitution should override the stipulation in the charter that provides for the organic law.

But such places faith in the Constitutional Court not to have a political bias for all things pro-authoritarian in any constitutional review of new laws.