Thailand's EC Demonstrated Confusion On Laws

[webfact]

ANALYSIS

EC demonstrated confusion on laws

By Somroutai Sapsomboon,

Kornchanok Raksaseri

The Nation

Looking deeply into the constitution court's verdict

The Constitution Court's verdict rejecting dissolution of the Democrat Party for alleged misuse of Bt29 million in political party development funds raised questions not only on the work of the court, but on the work of the Election Commission - which was the main factor that lead to the case being dismissed by the court.

The unofficial ruling the court read on Monday gave two reasons for dropping the case, both relating to unlawful process.

First, the EC had filed the case to the Constitution Court in the wrong order. The commission resolved to file the case before the political party registrar had stated his opinion. The court stressed the necessity of the political party registrar's comment.

The other point made by the court, stressing the importance of the EC's resolution, was that the political party registrar must follow the resolution of the commission. And no matter if the political party registrar comments or not, he must file the case within 15 days of the EC resolution.

Both issues showed that the key factor making the filing of the case unlawful was confusion in the EC's work, which can be seen from the incorrect legal quoting and the commission's vague resolutions.

For example, in the EC's resolution last December 17, the majority of commissioners agreed the Democrat Party should be dissolved according to Article 95 of the Political Party Act. The article says the EC must submit the case to the Attorney General before passing it on to Constitution Court. However, the case should have been submitted directly to the Constitution Court, according to Article 93 of the law.

The difference between the two articles was the EC was obligated to file directly to the court the case of misuse of state funds (the Bt29 million case). But in the case of the alleged illegal receipt of a Bt258-million donation from TPI Polene, that had to be filed to the Attorney General.

However, on December 17, EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond was among the minority who said both cases should be dropped.

Another incident that showed the EC's disagreement on these matters or confusion about the laws was its meeting on April 12.

The commissioners unanimously agreed to file a dissolution case. A majority - three commissioners - agreed that the EC should file the case to the Auditor-General, according to Article 95. But Apichart and Wisuth Pothitaen said the case must be filed to the Constitution Court within 15 days, as per Article 93.

After that day, April 12, most of the EC members might have realised they were confused. In their meeting on April 21, while Apichart was on a business trip, the other EC members unanimously agreed to file the case directly to the court within 15 days. They treated Apichart's opinion on April 12 as that of the political party registrar. The EC chairman also holds the position of political party registrar.

The commissioners might have thought it had filled the hole created by the fact that the political party registrar's opinion was still missing, but their decision became an issue in the Constitution Court ruling.

The court said Apichart's comment on April 12 was made as the EC chairman - not the opinion of the political party registrar, and those roles must be separated.

One question that lingers is if Apichart, a former judge who had a reputation as one of the most precise legalists, really made such mistakes through carelessness or by intention.

Looked at on the surface, the Constitution Court's verdict indicated the flaw in Apichart failing to submit the case within 15 days. But the verdict also defended Apichart's conduct.

In one part, the verdict said Apichart "had not submitted" his opinion on the case as the political party registrar. It meant the case had not even been started unless the political party registrar gave his comment.

Meanwhile, all of Apichart's comments were according to the law. Not one of them was against the law. He seemed to understand the story well. That raises even more questions about Apichart's intent.

It was unclear whether Apichart tried to make his colleagues understand and see all the aspects he had seen.

All in all, the confusion at the Election Commission was a result of the mixing and combining of two cases that violated different laws.

Nevertheless, another reason behind the confusion might be pressure from the red shirts. The EC reversed its decision many times. Apichart himself, in particular, used to say the Democrats had done no wrong, but his comments changed dramatically later.

-- The Nation 2010-12-01

[asiawatcher]

Ah. so that was it! The law is the law and if filed out of sequence then of course, separate cases must be taken as such. Pity they did not bring that to the attention of the public before wasting time and money on months of assessment when it is very clear! Oh well, gave the Dems more time.

[random]

Well at least the treated TRT exactly the same and dismissed their dissolution case when that was also filed after the 15 days statute of limitations.

Oh wait, no they didn't, they carried on regardless, the double standards in the country are bad, but the lack of shame on the faces of the dems when it is clear to even the most yellow of people what has gone here, again.

[SomTumTiger]

Well at least the treated TRT exactly the same and dismissed their dissolution case when that was also filed after the 15 days statute of limitations.

Oh wait, no they didn't, they carried on regardless, the double standards in the country are bad, but the lack of shame on the faces of the dems when it is clear to even the most yellow of people what has gone here, again.

Any proof to back up this claim? Or are you just spouting off?

[hammered]

We shouldnt also forget that the EC hurriedly submitted the case after there names and addresses and phone numbers were read out on the red stage along with those of family members and that the speakers then said they couldnt guarantee the safety of them. This was while the reds sat blocking Bangkok, intimidating 7-11 worklers and had been seen in possession of firearms. Not to mention the police were actively assisting the reds and the army doing nothing with the government holed up in an army base.

The court decision is odd. The ECs decisoon to forward a case 3 of its own panels had found had no evidence was a tad odd too. However the illegal intimadation by an armed group was also legally questionabe. So who comes out of this looking good?

[animatic]

We shouldnt also forget that the EC hurriedly submitted the case after there names and addresses and phone numbers were read out on the red stage along with those of family members and that the speakers then said they couldnt guarantee the safety of them. This was while the reds sat blocking Bangkok, intimidating 7-11 worklers and had been seen in possession of firearms. Not to mention the police were actively assisting the reds and the army doing nothing with the government holed up in an army base.

The court decision is odd. The ECs decisoon to forward a case 3 of its own panels had found had no evidence was a tad odd too. However the illegal intimadation by an armed group was also legally questionabe. So who comes out of this looking good?

Not the Reds nor the EC members of this iteration of the EC.

What keeps getting left off is the testified fact that an

EARLIER EC had signed off on the changes, and thus made them legal 5 years ago.

This is, he said she said, between THREE different EC's

and then pressure applied on at the end to make this latest one

file a case the previous one had also ignored. And a much more previous one

had deemed a legal set of changes.

Did any one here during testimony that ANY money had changes hands over the EC

vetted amount? Or was it just one unsigned receipt from one printing contractor

as the sum total evidence of wrong doing?