NLA members can ask Constitutional Court to rule on amendment to NACC bill

By Thai PBS

 

 

Members of the National Legislative Assembly have the right to ask the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of an amendment to the NACC Bill which seeks to exempt the current members of the NACC from having to meet the qualifications requirement so they can stay on to fulfil their 9-year term in the office, said NLA vice president Mr Surachai Liangboonlertchai on Monday (Jan 15). 

 

He made the above remark in response to a suggestion by Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Meechai Ruchupan that the NLA to petition the charter court to rule on the legitimacy of the amendment which has come under heavy criticism for excluding NACC members for being “set zero” whereas members of the other charter-mandated independent organizations such as the Election Commission and the National Human Rights Commission are “set zero”.

 

Personally, Mr Surachai said that since the public has doubt about the amendment, it would benefit to all parties concerned if the doubt is cleared up so that the NACC can perform its duty without allegations.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nla-members-can-ask-constitutional-court-rule-amendment-nacc-bill/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2018-01-16

The whole junta-appointed NLA also has the right to disband that might hasten elections.

But I can't hold my breathe for very long.

 

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The whole junta-appointed NLA also has the right to disband that might hasten elections.

But I can't hold my breathe for very long.

 

That is true, but there is a political reason why this is an issue (a valid issue).

 

Remember that they have gone after the previous government that they overthrew because of malfeasance in regards to doing something "they knew" or "should have known" was illegal did they not (with regards to the amnesty bill) -- I seem to vaguely remember that.  They have also found Yingluck guilty of malfeasance not for corruption, but because she should have known (malfeasance).  

 

So this move is to put it before the NLA that what they are doing is very likely against the constitution and thus they should check with the constitutional court to make sure that it is constitutional.  If they go ahead with the bill regardless of what the constitution states -- then by the same standards the NLA would be guilty of malfeasance - and thus ineligible for the legislative posts they are due to move into.  

 

We of course all know that the laws are not applied evenly, so it will only become a political exercise - but it would be a demonstration -- a very obvious demonstrated of the inequity before the law.

 

Now Article 44 could be invoked to basically make it legal - but that would only allow them to sit until the next legislature session begins after the "election" since that is when article 44 expires if the law is unconstitutional but overridden by invoking article 44.

 

Actually, I thought if you launched a lawsuit on a law -- it would have to be after it came into force -- but -- I believe the legislature has the option to seek an opinion on whether the proposed law violates the constitution (not a ruling, a consultation of sorts).