THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT has practically become a “superpower” agency which could put an end to policies and resolutions made by those in the legislative branch and hand them severe penalties, according to a noted academic.

 

Munin Pongsapan, a former dean of Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law, commented the Constitutional Court had been practically turned into a “superpower” agency empowered by the junta-designed constitution of 2017 to deliver draconian penalties to parties in the legislative branch at any given time.

 

That the Constitution Court’s ruling delivered yesterday (Jan.31) to prohibit the Move Forward from proceeding with attempted amendment to the lese majeste law, better known as Section 112 of the Criminal Code, unambiguously underlined the independent, judicial agency’s superseding power over pro-amendment moves of the progressive party which constitutes part of the legislative branch, Munin said.

 

According to the Thammasat academic, the Constitutional Court has unduly overpowered the legislative branch though the judges were basically designed to keep the judicial branch in check and balance with the legislative or executive branch.

 

By Thai Newsroom Reporters

Representative images of the Constitutional Court. Credit: Matichon

 

Full story: THAI NEWSROOM 2024-02-02

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

14 minutes ago, webfact said:

the Constitutional Court had been practically turned into a “superpower” agency empowered by the junta-designed constitution of 2017

Prayuth can't stop laughing....

 

One day their world will come crashing down, taking them with it.

 

Can't wait.

The Junta gift that keeps on giving...

3 hours ago, flyingtlger said:

Prayuth can't stop laughing....

 

 

If there is any justice in the world, he will come back in his next life as a dung beetle.

Basically Thailand's so-called "democracy" is based on the appointed senate and the appointed CC. Vote however you like but if you vote for the ones we don't like we will keep them from gaining power. One person one vote is not how it works in Thailand. Elections and voting is meaningless thus democracy is non-existent. Thailand is a dictatorship of the ruling class. 

2 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

 

If there is any justice in the world, he will come back in his next life as a dung beetle.

Dung beetles serve a very usefull existence. Maybe perpetual reincarnation as the dung itself.

There are so many problems with this (Constitutional/Charter) court, and others.

 

little/no oversight

 

the public has no involvement in the selection of judges

 

there is no visibility/transparency on the mechanisms of this court

 

the court routinely threatens the public that they cannot question or criticize the court or its decisions

 

opinions/decisions/dissents are not made public

 

 

Marsupial comes to mind.

 

 

 

 

It is the voice of the ones really in charge of the country...

1 hour ago, bamnutsak said:

 

Marsupial comes to mind.

 

care to explain how this describes them?

8 hours ago, webfact said:

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT has practically become a “superpower” agency which could put an end to policies and resolutions made by those in the legislative branch and hand them severe penalties, according to a noted academic.

The constitutional court is owned by the elite to do their bidding and dirty work.

4 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

The Junta gift that keeps on giving...

Taking.

4 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

 

If there is any justice in the world, he will come back in his next life as a dung beetle.

You don't get to be the same thing twice. 

That was the whole point of the Constitution, as rewritten. Did Munin not understand that at the time and speak out then? Why is everybody now pretending to be surprised by this? Does everyone really have such a shallow understanding of the established power dynamics here?

11 hours ago, flyingtlger said:

Prayuth can't stop laughing....

 

The strategy from the start. 

.....and seems to still be working for them, regardless of surface and faux democratic systems. 

 

Actually, these underlying practices were in place long long long before Prayuth. 

History is usually hidden.

I don't know if I understand this correctly, but why do people think the court should be elected by the people or do what the people wants?

The constitution and the laws of the land inform the court what can be done or not done. If the constitution contains clauses protecting any institution, that is what the court must follow. I don't see they can choose to ignore or change the constitution at the beck and call of "the people" . Perhaps the court can interpret, to clarify something, but it would be duty bound to follow the law wouldn't it?

Perhaps the fault is with the writers of the constitution, but a new government would still have to be cautious of breaking the current law while trying to rewrite it. 

Edited February 2, 20242 yr by Purdey

8 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

It is the voice of the ones really in charge of the country...

I agree but ones is plural. I think if we go singular we find who is really in power and directing everything. The only thing this will achieve is increase the disaffection against that power.

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

I don't know if I understand this correctly, but why do people think the court should be elected by the people or do what the people wants?

The constitution and the laws of the land inform the court what can be done or not done. If the constitution contains clauses protecting any institution, that is what the court must follow. I don't see they can choose to ignore or change the constitution at the beck and call of "the people" . Perhaps the court can interpret, to clarify something, but it would be duty bound to follow the law wouldn't it?

Perhaps the fault is with the writers of the constitution, but a new government would still have to be cautious of breaking the current law while trying to rewrite it. 

The so-called constitution was written to protect the powers of the elite.

5 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

That was the whole point of the Constitution, as rewritten. Did Munin not understand that at the time and speak out then? Why is everybody now pretending to be surprised by this? Does everyone really have such a shallow understanding of the established power dynamics here?

Power comes from the top. The very top.

8 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

There are so many problems with this (Constitutional/Charter) court, and others.

 

little/no oversight

 

the public has no involvement in the selection of judges

 

there is no visibility/transparency on the mechanisms of this court

 

the court routinely threatens the public that they cannot question or criticize the court or its decisions

 

opinions/decisions/dissents are not made public

 

 

Marsupial comes to mind.

 

 

 

 

Kangaroo court?

The correct name is "TCP" .

 

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The so-called constitution was written to protect the powers of the elite.

 

And altered/changed AFTER the sham public referendum.

 

 

19 hours ago, Purdey said:

I don't know if I understand this correctly, but why do people think the court should be elected by the people or do what the people wants?

The constitution and the laws of the land inform the court what can be done or not done. If the constitution contains clauses protecting any institution, that is what the court must follow. I don't see they can choose to ignore or change the constitution at the beck and call of "the people" . Perhaps the court can interpret, to clarify something, but it would be duty bound to follow the law wouldn't it?

Perhaps the fault is with the writers of the constitution, but a new government would still have to be cautious of breaking the current law while trying to rewrite it. 

 

No, people are enraged because it is only the parliament & government of the day who are legally allowed to propose changes to laws, rewrite constitutions and propose amendments. The court should have no business deciding what changes to the constitution can or cannot be proposed by legally elected representatives of parliament, or those standing for representation of the people. Amendments to constitutions are typical of most democracies around the world.

 

If anyone only steps 1mm in direction to the articel 112 of the criminal code the "Constitutional Court" wakes up, considering only the letters of §§'s, but not the content. They don't act as a 3rd power in a state/democracy. They should be sent to London to learn what a "royal democracy" means. There are more states in Europe with the same (good) system.

 

Why does the CC not do the same with coup meakers, some parties etc? The list goes on. They are only concentrated on MFP and their "dangerous" members. Afraid of the future!

Edited February 3, 20242 yr by puck2

Given the amount of power this court wields the appointees should be directly elected by the people, not appointed, by a politician.

Edited February 4, 20242 yr by retarius

If you want a really good well written summary of this whole sorry saga here's a link. You can thank me later...

 

Secret Siam | Andrew MacGregor Marshall | Substack

 

Zombie apocalypse - by Andrew MacGregor Marshall (secretsiam.news)

 

 

Edited February 4, 20242 yr by mark131v