Legal experts fault charter court's interpretation of law in Future Forward dissolution case

By The Nation

 

FFP supporters react to the court's  verdict  at the party's  headquarters on Friday.

 

Dozens of law lecturers at Thammasat University on Monday (February 24) issued  a joint statement  expressing  their objection to  the Constitutional Court’s ruling to disband the Future Forward Party and bar its executives from politics for 10 years on the grounds that the party received illegally a loan of  Bt191 million from its leader  Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

 

The 36  lecturers said the judges did not interpret the law correctly and warned that the current  political conflict could only be resolved  through accurate and fair interpretation of  the laws.

 

They did not agree with the court's  verdict, the lecturers said,  which stated that a political party is barred from borrowing money.

 

A judicial body blow to democracy

Thai security affairs adviser lashes out at US response to dissolution of Future Forward

 

First, they argued that a political party is not a public juristic person, because they could not exercise public power. Political parties are more like corporates or charity foundations which do not have public power. Political parties can only propose policies under  the international benchmark and the Thai law system. Previous rulings on cases  by the Thai Administrative Court were  in line with this international practice.

 

“Therefore, political parties could borrow money ,” said the law lecturers. The legal experts said political parties can borrow money like corporate firms and there was no need to have a separate law giving them the authority to borrow. The court’s verdict says political parties can do what only the law allows them to do when there is no such specific law.

 

On the second point, they did not agree with the court's  reasoning that  given the interest rate on the loan was lower than the market rate, it should  not be considered a  loan. The law lecturers argued that lower interest rate charge was not an unusual practice in the market, the rate charged depended  on an  agreement between the borrower and lender.

 

Therefore, the low-interest  loan is not a donation which is stated in section 66 of the Organic Act on Political Parties. It is a debt that the political party needs to pay back.

 

On the third point,  section 72 of the Organic Act on Political Parties which prohibits political parties to receive unlawful money ,or deemed being originated from illegal activities, could not be applied  to this case.

 

The maximum donation of Bt10 million a year per donor under  section 66 does not relate to section 72, the two sections must be applied separately unless there is clear evidence that the  money was  unlawfully acquired  or  originated from illegal activities, the law lecturers said.

 

Therefore, violation of  section 66 cannot be the reason for dissolving  the political party.

 

Fourthly, the intention to  dissolve  a political party, as practiced internationally, is  to protect the democracy and the constitution in guarding a democratic political system from the  threat of dictatorship. The dissolution of political party can be applied only when it is proven that a political party or a political group is intended on toppling a democratic political system or the constitution.

 

By principle of law , the Constitutional Court must limit its  power in ruling on cases involving  political party dissolution. Dissolution must be the last resort and should be imposed only when a  political party has committed  serious wrong-doing that could not be protected by the freedom of expression principle.

 

" If there is no clear evidence, the court has to limit its own power," said law experts. 

 

“We believe that the prolonged  political conflict could be resolved by accurate law interpretation and justice . Democracy could survive if law professionals do their duties without prejudice and people jointly find a way out of conflict with proper reasons and patience,” they say in the statement jointly signed by the 36 law lecturers, which noted  that their opinions did not represent the views of  Thammasat University’s Law Faculty.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30382755?utm_source=homepage_hilight&utm_medium=internal_referral

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-02-25

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

The 36  lecturers said the judges did not interpret the law correctly

nothing to do with interpreting the law correctly in a banana republic

in recent weeks this country seems to be going down the s h I tter on multiple levels 

 

 

it really is disturbing

 

and that is on top of all the normal type s h I t that we have seen for the last 6 years

 

it really can't go on like this

 

They hate westerners because we know and call it

I think Thai people will eventually get it 

 

6 million people right now must be very p issed off

 

The junta thinks they don't matter - I honestly think that is a grave error and I can understand why    

36 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

nothing to do with interpreting the law correctly in a banana republic

when foreign diplomats from the US EU and others around the world voice their opinion on such matters openly and in public then Thailand needs to pay attention

 

Thailands response sounded like it came from a classroom of 6 year olds - unbelievable

 

they are obviously out of their depth and will pay for their childish ignorance  

What most people seem to forget : Thailand has a ( pseudo ) democracy , but first of all , it is a Monarchy .

Legal experts are not under pressure from above to make the "correct" decision. We know where this decision came from and it wasn't just from the judges.

Very sad when you see a government doing all this and then getting angry when other people refuse to play along with it. It shows you how out of depth they are and how they'll do anything to cling to power.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Democracy could survive if law professionals do their duties without prejudice and people jointly find a way out of conflict with proper reasons and patience,”

It is the only way it will survive.  The Thai people must be able to voice their opinion.  Many to this day are afraid to talk about politics.  Thank god for   Thammasat University.   The current judges should be ashamed of themselves pandering to the whims of the wealthy and powerful. 

Don't worry these professors will come out in a few days saying they were wrong or get jailed or disappear.

All of which is interesting, but completely nullified by one phone call.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by ParkerN

2 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

What most people seem to forget : Thailand has a ( pseudo ) democracy , but first of all , it is a Monarchy .

I don't think it really qualifies to be called a democracy at this point.

I think more Thai law legal experts need to come forth same as these 36. They are professors of law and how could all of them be wrong.

7 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

What most people seem to forget : Thailand has a ( pseudo ) democracy , but first of all , it is a Monarchy .

No, its a military (I use the term military very loosely) D "the fact I can't even say the word emphasis that fact". Thai history is very interesting especially the start date for coups being as old as BKk.