Court ruling on anti-graft bill waiver not in line with spirit of charter: Jade

[webfact]

Court ruling on anti-graft bill waiver not in line with spirit of charter: Jade

By The Nation

 

Jade.

 

An adviser to the Constitution Drafting Commission, Jade Donavanik, said on Monday that the recent court ruling on the constitutionality of the waiver of a charter clause addressing disqualifications that some of the current anti-corruption commissioners have, did not adhere to the spirit of the Constitution.
 

The law expert also questioned whether the Constitutional Court, in coming up with its ruling, had performed its duty in protecting the charter, as it was obliged to do.

 

Jade said the court ruling had set a standard for writing an organic law which was not in line with the Constitution.

 

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in December voted to approve the new national anti-corruption bill, which contained an amendment to allow some of the current anti-graft commissioners with qualifications prohibited under the charter to stay in office.

 

Such a waiver via legal amendment prompted some 32 NLA members to petition the Constitutional Court to rule on whether it was indeed constitutional.

 

The court last Friday ruled that the clause in the bill as written was not unconstitutional.

 

Jade said the court may have focused principally on the bill’s content, while not adhering to the charter’s spirit.

 

However, this may allow politicians in the future to exploit the ruling in order to write the content of bills to benefit their own interests and damage those of the public, he warned.

 

A domino effect could follow, if some tried to exercise legal authority by using Friday’s ruling as a precedent for amending the critical organic MP election and Senate bills without taking constitutionality into consideration, he suggested. 

 

This, Jade said, could lead to a new political crisis, as issues concerning independent organisations were always sensitive as far as the public was concerned.

 

The NLA in this case may have had authority to enact an organic law, but the bill’s contents must not run counter the charter, he stressed.

 

As the Constitutional Court is the last resort for people to seek rulings in regard to constitutionality, the court could therefore be questioned as to whether or not it had performed its duty of protecting the charter, which it was obliged to do, the law expert added.

 

“The issue has gone too far to turn back, like we have pressed the wrong button on our shirt, and I am just worried that it will open a loophole for exploitation,” he explained.

 

Meanwhile, former anti-corruption commissioner Vicha Mahakun said that although the court ruling was not open to formal debate, only acceptance, it would be debated critically by academics, especially as to the point that the clause in question had been written to waive a requirement in the charter.

 

In the future, the anti-corruption commissioners would find it hard to proceed with their work as trust in them had become questionable, he said.

 

They would be “questioned back”, especially by politicians and senior officials subject to their corruption investigations, Vicha said, citing his own experience, where trust was the most important asset enabling national anti-graft commissioners to handle pressure put on them.

 

The problem has the potential to emerge during the transition of the government, from the ruling junta to an elected administration, he added.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30340759

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-03-13

[Get Real]

54 minutes ago, webfact said:

Court ruling on anti-graft bill waiver not in line with spirit of charter

Spirit? I was under the belief that it was some kind of law. Maybe the flying head has become a secret chief advisor to the CDC.

[yellowboat]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

The court last Friday ruled that the clause in the bill as written was not unconstitutional.

Why doesn't the court then debate the issue with this fine man?  Perhaps it is because face of highly placed officials is far more important than something so trivial as the law?   Honestly, it is people like this guy and Kuhn June that give people any hope for Thailand's future

[mtls2005]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

which contained an amendment to allow some of the current anti-graft commissioners with qualifications prohibited under the charter to stay in office.

 

"Qualifications prohibited"? Please share.

 

 

[smutcakes]

23 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

"Qualifications prohibited"? Please share.

 

 

I believe they are not allowed to have held political posts within 5 years, but the head guy Mr. Watchapol (sp?) has held a political position within this time.

I would not be surprised if they had him step down which would firstly appease public sentiment and secondly the new NACC member would have to start the watch investigation from scratch.

[YetAnother]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The law expert also questioned whether the Constitutional Court, in coming up with its ruling, had performed its duty in protecting the charter, as it was obliged to do.

everyone knows the court system here is politicized

[RichardColeman]

Don;t be daft, if all those on the take left , there would only be the 'plebs' left to run everything ! And they are more concerned with killing each other on the roads than politics or government.

[Jimbo in Thailand]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

I̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶u̶t̶u̶r̶e̶,̶   the anti-corruption commissioners w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ find it hard to proceed with their work [continuing to prosecute the innocent while protecting the guilty—themselves] as [there is zero] trust in them h̶a̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶e̶  [since everything they do is] questionable, he said.

There, fixed it for ya.

 

 

BTW, who removed most of the editing options?  

[Eric Loh]

By this account, the NLA lawbreakers are mightier than the constitution and we thought that the constitution is the highest law in the country. Thailand is so screwed.