Constitution Court Acquits Thai Democrat

[webfact]

Urgent: Constitution Court acquits Democrat

The Constitution Court ruled in favour of the Democrat Party and rejected the Election Commission's request to dissolve the party.

The court reasoned the suit was unlawful.

-- The Nation 2010-11-29

[SomTumTiger]

Abhsit haters will decry this, but the man is the best PM we've had in 10 years, and (while not perfect by a long shot), is a hell of a lot better to any PTP mouthbreather as PM (or Sanan, or Sanoh, or any of the other marshmellows).

Oldest party keeps getting older. Look for house dissolution in April, and current coalition wins majority and is back until at least 2014. :jap:

[jdinasia]

And there we have it!

A 4:2 decision saving the Dems from dissolution.

[hammered]

On a different note, I bet the speed of this has taken many reporters by surprise

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTION LAWS

Democrat Party survives

By The Nation

The Constitution Court on Monday dropped party dissolution case against Democrat Party of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The court said that the EC's procedure concerning the resolution case was unlawful and the submission of the petition was beyond the 15-day deadline.

The court cited unlawful procesure as ground not to review other facts and evidence.

-- The Nation 2010-11-29

[jdinasia]

On a different note, I bet the speed of this has taken many reporters by surprise

Reporters? ---- It took ME by surprise! I was expecting 2-3 hours for them to tell us that they would hand down a final decision in a month!

[webfact]

Thai court dismisses case against ruling party

by Thanaporn Promyamyai

BANGKOK, November 29, 2010 (AFP) - Thailand's ruling Democrats were saved from dissolution on Monday when the Constitutional Court dismissed a case that had threatened the political survival of the party and the prime minister.

The decision to throw out the case, which centred on alleged misuse of state funds, means Abhisit Vejjajiva stays in power, but will anger government critics who say the Thai political scene is subject to legal double standards.

Six judges voted to drop the case four to two after closing remarks were heard on Monday morning in the trial over charges of misuse of a 29-million-baht (960,000-dollar) state election grant in 2005.

The Bangkok court had the power to disband the Democrat Party -- the country's oldest -- and hand down five-year political bans to senior figures, including Abhisit.

Judge Udomsak Nitimontree told the court that Thailand's Election Commission (EC) had failed to meet a submission deadline when it lodged the case, meaning it must be thrown out.

Reading out the ruling, he said the case was "unconstitutional because the process was not done properly".

The EC called in April for the party to be abolished over the accusations, as well as a separate case alleging an undeclared political donation, which is yet to be heard in court.

The call coincided with the country's worst political violence in decades, which ultimately left more than 90 people dead and almost 1,900 wounded in a series of street clashes between anti-government protesters and troops.

The Democrats were accused of paying 23 million baht to advertising firms, despite having permission to spend only 19 million on billboard marketing.

The prime minister was present for Monday's verdict, which was delivered with hundreds of police officers on hand outside the court to ensure security. He left smiling, without any comment.

Some observers, including author and former Thai diplomat Pavin Chachavalpongpun, questioned whether Abhisit's backers in the military and Bangkok-based elite would have allowed the Democrats to be toppled.

The ruling "will strengthen the belief among the opposition that the elite and the Democrat party would do anything to maintain their power interests, even at the expense of the reputation and credibility of the court," Pavin said.

"It deepens the rift in Thai society. It reinforces the belief among the opposition that double standards really exist," he told AFP.

The Democrats had expressed confidence they would win the case, with Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban saying ahead of the verdict that there was "no contingency plan" in place for a ban.

The party came to power in a parliamentary vote two years ago after court decisions ousted allies of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself unseated in a 2006 military coup.

The judiciary forced two premiers from office in 2008 -- both opponents of the Democrats. One of them, Samak Sundaravej, was removed for taking payments for hosting TV cooking shows.

Abhisit, the party's deputy leader at the time of the alleged grant misuse, appeared as a witness for the defence during the trial, telling the court the election body had been informed about changes in campaign plans.

He has also had to defend the Democrats against accusations that a member of his party had attempted to influence the judiciary in the case.

Allegations that a Democrat lawmaker met an aide of a Constitutional Court judge ahead of a hearing in October -- and was captured doing so on video -- were splashed on the front pages of local newspapers.

Three out of the original nine judges later withdrew from the case to pursue legal action against the aide, whom they accuse of leaking the video.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-11-29

[hammered]

Bet the odl stock market soars on this one

[Buchholz]

On a different note, I bet the speed of this has taken many reporters by surprise

The marathon readings of the TRT and PPP cases were excruciating.

[asiawatcher]

As Gomer Pyle said - Surprise Surprise!!! What did Thailand expect? Sour grapes from the Reds and another waste of Admin and legal resources apart from taxpayers money!

Let's wait for the next bitch session from the Reds.... it'll come.

[george]

Thailand's SET up +16.14 pt after Democrat Party survives dissolution by Constitution Court

[jdinasia]

Bet the odl stock market soars on this one

http://www.set.or.th/en/index.html

yeppers

[hanuman1]

Since the judgement said:

old law will b applied when offences r concerned, while new law when methods r concerned

The filing of a complaint can only be interperated as a 'method' rather than an 'offence', meaning the new law must have been applied to it.

But how some of the judges could have misinterperated this with the result of a non-unanimous vote is beyond me. As usual, we need to know more.

Edited November 29, 2010 by hanuman1

[opalhort]

I am glad the Democrats survived this case, but they still face the one regarding the 250M Baht from TPI. Could the current ruling have any impact on the pending one?

Also the Democrats were not acquitted (Note to mods re. topic title) but the case was dismissed. Is there any chance that somebody could come up with a way to re-file the charges at a later time?

[Buchholz]

Bet the old stock market soars on this one

Opened this morning down 5.5 points, now it's up 14.5

[jdinasia]

I am glad the Democrats survived this case, but they still face the one regarding the 250M Baht from TPI. Could the current ruling have any impact on the pending one?

Also the Democrats were not acquitted (Note to mods re. topic title) but the case was dismissed. Is there any chance that somebody could come up with a way to re-file the charges at a later time?

No chance that the same charges can be re-filed later. The EC got its bite at the apple and failed to do it properly. The TPI case is a different type of issue but it has no clean money trail (to my understanding) and is thus "he says, she says".

[whybother]

I am glad the Democrats survived this case, but they still face the one regarding the 250M Baht from TPI. Could the current ruling have any impact on the pending one?

Also the Democrats were not acquitted (Note to mods re. topic title) but the case was dismissed. Is there any chance that somebody could come up with a way to re-file the charges at a later time?

Given that the deadline passed in the first case, there is probably no way to file it again after the deadline.

[jdinasia]

Thailand's SET up +16.14 pt after Democrat Party survives dissolution by Constitution Court

and climbing?

[animatic]

All it took was reaching ONE single point that invalidated the entire procedure and the suit is over. It's not a case of not getting into the basis of the charges merits, because they are moot if the suit is not proper, properly filed, or correctly legal to proceed upon. Seems they found a very early issue that closed things down. It of course calls for a simple reading of what basis for throwing out the case was about, and nothing further was needed. No doubt they new this early on and went through the formality of allowing closing arguments, but the hint was that a ruling would come today after lunch, with an obvious lack of need to analyze the closing arguments at all.

So this is all over except the Red sides howling into the night about....

insert expletive here.

over and over again.

Edited November 29, 2010 by animatic

[thailife69]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

[jdinasia]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

The answer to your final question is NO. (There are dirty politicians in EVERY party --- but by and large the ethics of the Dems are far better than other parties)

Did they commit the offense of making signs that were not exactly the correct size? Yes

Was it an offense that was punishable by dissolution? We don't know.

[webfact]

Democrats Acquitted on Technicality

The court reasoned their acquittal on the fact that the Election Commission did not file the charges in accordance to Article 93 of the Constitution.

-- Tan Network 2010-11-29

[whybother]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

The EC didn't seem to think so when they reviewed the case a number of times. It wasn't until pressure from the red shirts that they submitted the case to the Constitution Court.

[Buchholz]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

The three previous EC investigations clearing the Democrats of wrongdoing would seem to indicate that wasn't the case.

[animatic]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

Well the basis of law is technicality, if things MUST fit the letter of the law, then missing on a single point is STILL missing the mark. (pun intended)

[gregb]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

Are they corrupt? Every Thai party in existence is corrupt to some degree. The Democrats are no different.

Are they *AS* corrupt? This court proceeding wouldn't have answered that question no matter what the result. This was simply one example of one possible case of corruption. What you wanted to know was never going to be answered.

The only important thing from all of this is that the Thai people accept it and move on. There will be an election early next year if we accept Abhisit at his word. Hopefully, all the mudslinging will stop after that.

[MandoDog]

Amazing Thailand. As others have said, at least this was a relatively minor issue (even if it was never concluded). Lord help us if they ever get them on something serious like cooking on TV.

[random]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

The answer to your final question is NO. (There are dirty politicians in EVERY party --- but by and large the ethics of the Dems are far better than other parties)

Did they commit the offense of making signs that were not exactly the correct size? Yes

Was it an offense that was punishable by dissolution? We don't know.

That is your opinion.

If the ruling was based on improper submitting why did two judges find agaisnt them? This makes no sense, it is however the whitewash I expected and once again the army backed government get away with committing offences, I bet you can't even see the hypocrisy or will dress it up as something else.

[animatic]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

The answer to your final question is NO. (There are dirty politicians in EVERY party --- but by and large the ethics of the Dems are far better than other parties)

Did they commit the offense of making signs that were not exactly the correct size? Yes

Was it an offense that was punishable by dissolution? We don't know.

I have repeated that many times that stated testimony saying that the EC signed off on the changes BEFORE THE ELECTION.

If the EC signed off on the Dems not getting what they ordered from printers, and the practicality of not just returning the signs at such a late date

that defacto made it LEGAL. This only became an issue when the printer who didn't get his graft from the Dems, went to PTP looking to get even.

This all came out in testimony and made quite clear the case was submitted under pressure and not based on it's merits.

[animatic]

My understanding is that they survived on a technicality.

Will we ever know if the offense was as suggested.

What I wanted to know is did they or did they not commit the offense of not playing fairly.

Are they as corrupt as the other parties that have been dissolved?

The answer to your final question is NO. (There are dirty politicians in EVERY party --- but by and large the ethics of the Dems are far better than other parties)

Did they commit the offense of making signs that were not exactly the correct size? Yes

Was it an offense that was punishable by dissolution? We don't know.

That is your opinion.

If the ruling was based on improper submitting why did two judges find agaisnt them? .... ( edit)

Fear, might account for that.