Judicial Activism From Thailand's Constitution Court

[webfact]

Judicial Activism

The meeting attended by Worawut Navapokin, an adviser to the House Local Administration Promotion Committee, Rayong MP Virat Romyen, who is also a member of the Democrat Party’s legal team on the party dissolution case and Secretary to the Constitutional Court Pasit Sakdanarong that took place at a restaurant in the Prachachuen area in Bangkok on October 7 has became a major news story. The true purpose of the meeting also came under public scrutiny, particularly, just right before the Constitution Court is about to give a verdict, deciding the faith of an old political party. More explanation is needed.

The “judicial activism” started from the Constitution Court, which has been able to solve many of the political dilemmas. The court itself was originally designed to interpret the laws, as to deal out justice rather than reviewing the technicality of the Constitution. However, the court may have been overstepping its authority by involving itself with the legislative and executive branches. Because of this, society has raised a question on the true role of the court and wondered if the court itself has already been interfered with.

Normally, Pasit is a very cautious person in making any opinions in regards to the Constitution Court. He often claimed that it was just his opinion when making any comments about the law. However, by dining with Virat, right before October 18, when Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who is the leader of the Democrat Party, was scheduled to testify at the trial, anyone with common sense would conclude that it was not a personal meeting. Also, Virat and Pasit did not know each other that well so it is unlikely that the meeting was just part of social etiquette as claimed.

Certainly, all of this is just a political maneuver which the Pheu Thai Party will benefit from, no matter what the verdict is. The Democrat Party is at a disadvantage even though President of the Constitution Court Chat Chalavorn has already fired Pasit. The court has also insisted that Pasit was not a link between the court and the Democrat Party. In reality, no judges or any court official, no matter how high-up they may be, could interfere with the trial proceedings. At any rate, it is undeniable that Virat has made a blunder and is now knee-deep in trouble.

Taken from Editorial Section, Kom Chad Leuk Newspaper, Page 4, October 19, 2010

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan

Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-20

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

While the meeting with Pasit needs to be investigated much further, I don't see any support at all within this editorial that the constitutional court has been involved in "politics", as asserted by this writer. Perhaps the writer should do his job and explain how prior constitutional court decisions have exceeded the authority granted to the court.

[hammered]

2001

[rubl]

Friday, 3 August, 2001 to be precise.

In June the same year it was alleged "Mr Thaksin's opponents have accused him of orchestrating the campaigns to intimidate the judges of the constitutional court who will decide his fate some time in the next two months."

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

2001

Not sure what you mean, but if you are referring to the 2001 decision in which the Constitutional Court ruled that Thaksin should not be removed for failing to fully declare his and his family's assets, how does that fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court? How would that support the writer's allegation of judicial activism? This link may help you: Constitutional Court

[orang37]

1. the link posted by "zaphodbeeblebrox" is a direct copy of the Wikipedia entry on this topic, and is credited as such at the bottom of the article: http://en.wikipedia....urt_of_Thailand

2. the 2001 "decision" to acquit Khun T. had eleven members of the court who voted that Khun T. broke the law ... by not filing required financial disclosures ... but eight voted to acquit over the issue of "criminal intent." In any case a court subject to the authority of a higher court (the Supreme Court) effectively nullified political democracy, as they did again when dismissing Samak.

This is called "judicial activism" where the judiciary eclipses the executive and legislative branches in a way not consistent with "western" democracy (which is not to put "western democracy" on a pedestal of any type : consider America: putting Clinton on trial, the decision in the Gore/Bush election dispute over ballots, the current spectacle of the wife of a sitting Surpeme Court Judge, Clarence Thomas, having a politically active conservative organization that will not reveal its anonymous donors of substantial funds). It suggests, at most, that in the absence of fundamental dysfunction in government, a judicial entity, quite new in Thailand historically, can wield enormous power.

The "judicial activism" started from the Constitution Court, which has been able to solve many of the political dilemmas. The court itself was originally designed to interpret the laws, as to deal out justice rather than reviewing the technicality of the Constitution. However, the court may have been overstepping its authority by involving itself with the legislative and executive branches. Because of this, society has raised a question on the true role of the court and wondered if the court itself has already been interfered with. Taken from Editorial Section, Kom Chad Leuk Newspaper, Page 4, October 19, 2010

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan

Feel like we just went on ride in Disneyland in response to the above paragraph. Suggest you start here for an alternate view/history of this court: Thai institutions: Constitutional Court August 10th, 2010 by Dominic J. Nardi, Jr

3.

Certainly, all of this is just a political maneuver which the Pheu Thai Party will benefit from, no matter what the verdict is. The Democrat Party is at a disadvantage even though President of the Constitution Court Chat Chalavorn has already fired Pasit. The court has also insisted that Pasit was not a link between the court and the Democrat Party. In reality, no judges or any court official, no matter how high-up they may be, could interfere with the trial proceedings.

Taken from Editorial Section, Kom Chad Leuk Newspaper, Page 4, October 19, 2010

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan

In Amazing T. where reality is always masked in smoke and mirrors, it is by no means clear yet what actually happened, why Pasit has fled to Hong Kong (other than to probably save his own life). Predict further revelations on this all too typical Thai psychodrama. In the meantime certain people can make huge use of this in their propaganda. And all the usual conspiracy theorists can trot all the usual "unseen hands" and "dark influences."

This quote: "In reality, no judges or any court official, no matter how high-up they may be, could interfere with the trial proceedings." really seems like a surreal topping on a trompe l'oeil cake Invite you to carefully consider who and what is not named as being unable to interfere in the above sentence.

4. Also suggest : Thai Institutions: JudiciaryJuly 12th, 2010 by Dominic J. Nardi for additional perspective.

best, ~o:37;

Edited October 20, 2010 by orang37

[chantorn]

Friday, 3 August, 2001 to be precise.

In June the same year it was alleged "Mr Thaksin's opponents have accused him of orchestrating the campaigns to intimidate the judges of the constitutional court who will decide his fate some time in the next two months."

I am sure Thaksin is involved. But I don't see his face in the video. Maybe Thaksin was the one holding the video recorder.