Judicial Consolidation Would Benefit Thaksin, Opposition Chief Whip Says

[webfact]

Jurin: Hidden agenda in court plan

The Nation

Judicial consolidation would benefit Thaksin, Opposition chief whip says

BANGKOK: -- The parliamentary opposition yesterday criticised Pheu Thai party-list MP and legal expert Watana Muangsook's proposal that the Constitution Court and Administrative Court be dissolved and turned into divisions of the Supreme Court.

Opposition chief whip Jurin Laksanavisit said the Pheu Thai Party had begun to reveal its hidden agenda to help fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a concern the Democrat Party raised during the recent parliamentary debate on charter change.

"The opposition whips believe this is what the Pheu Thai Party aims to do during the House committee's deliberation of the charter-change drafts. We should not go back to the past; we have developed quite far now," Jurin said.

"We are worried that there might be limitations put on some mechanisms to favour some special person or particular people. The public should watch closely."

After passing the first reading, the draft bill to change the charter's clause on the constitutional-amendment process will be considered and deliberated by a parliamentary committee.

Watana is a member of the committee. During last week's parliamentary debate, he criticised the 2007 Constitution as distorting the checks-and-balances system.

Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said the two courts were necessary.

"We have to wait and see clearly how the story unfolds. However, the independence of independent organisations and the court is crucial to maintaining proper checks and balances on our political system, to make sure authorities do not abuse their power. It is wrong to say that these agencies are the problem just because they cannot use power as they want," Abhisit said.

He was speaking on the "Fah Wan Mai" programme on Blue Sky Channel.

As evidence of the need for an independent Administrative Court, Abhisit raised the case of Map Ta Phut industrial estate, in which, he said, justice was served for local people.

"It is clear to see that for many years before [the court's ruling], their [local people's] problems were not properly tackled. Therefore, we can see that the Administrative Court is necessary, just as independent organisations such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Election Commission are. But some changes related to their forms are possible," Abhisit said.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung refused to comment on Watana's proposal, saying it was too soon to speak on the matter and he did not want to have conflicts with his fellow party members.

"It's too soon. We have to listen to the Constitution Drafting Assembly [CDA] first, but it hasn't been established yet. The change to Article 291 isn't finished. I don't dare go too far. The party hasn't discussed that," Chalerm said.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the party's MPs had been asked not to make any comment that could influence or override the work of the expected CDA, to protect the party's reputation and prevent it being the target of political attacks.

Moreover, Prompong said, the party resolved to produce and publicise banners saying that all Pheu Thai members support the prohibition of the CDA from making any change to the chapter of the charter related to the monarchy.

Democrat MP and legal expert Thaworn Senneam said he disagreed with the idea of making changes to the two courts, as they are specialised chambers whose rulings are based on a high degree of expertise.

The Constitution Court requires experts in the principles of Rechtsstaat and the rule of law to check and balance government administration to make sure it is in line with the charter. According to the legal concept of Rechtsstaat, a German term meaning roughly "state of justice", citizens are protected from arbitrary use of authority by the placing of limits on state power.

According to Thaworn, the Administrative Court requires legal experts to consider whether use of state power violates the rights of the people and the public.

"Downgrading the two courts to make them divisions of the Supreme Court would block qualitative consideration of cases, as they would be considered using only ordinary legal principles, as in conventional courts, which base decisions on criminal, civil and procedural laws. These are not sufficient for such cases. I think the attempt to change [their status] is due to the fact that both courts ruled in cases that affected former premier Thaksin," Thaworn said.

-- The Nation 2012-02-29

[Siripon]

Thaksin style democracy- no checks and balances. Watana opened his mouth too early.

[moe666]

With the manipulation and the budget decrees that they have passed without due consideration this is just another chink in the armour that keeps big T at bay. Begone if you limit my desires to be king of the hill.

[timber]

What is the mandate for pushing through a change to the constitution? Can Thaksin get it through

without support from minorities.

[givenall]

Thaksin style democracy- no checks and balances. Watana opened his mouth too early.

There are no surprises, everything Pheu Thai Party and this Government do is to make it easier for Mr. T to do what he wants in Thailand whether he is here or not

[sparebox2]

What is the mandate for pushing through a change to the constitution? Can Thaksin get it through

without support from minorities.

A simple question is NO.

But he is willing to pay for them to be on his site.

[givenall]

Thaksin style democracy- no checks and balances. Watana opened his mouth too early.

There are no surprises, everything Pheu Thai Party and this Government do is to make it easier for Mr. T to do what he wants in Thailand whether he is here or not

Actually he doesn’t pay for them anymore, all are on Thai government payroll.

The Thai treasury pay since the new government came to power.

[animatic]

But as in the past Thaksin will push too far

and the inevitable backlash will likely not be as kind as it was last time.

If he only knew when he was successful 'he was successful', but he only judges success by more of the same, and eventually there is no more to be had, or others have had enough of being his pawns.

[MaiChai]

Am I correct in saying that if you dissolve the bodies that prosecuted Taksin then there is no way you can use these bodies to prosecute him when he comes back? Thus no case/s or certainly no precedence to handle the situation?

[animatic]

Am I correct in saying that if you dissolve the bodies that prosecuted Taksin then there is no way you can use these bodies to prosecute him when he comes back? Thus no case/s or certainly no precedence to handle the situation?

They may hope so,

but that doesn't mean the cases evaporate,

though they may hope so.

If they are folded into the Supreme Court, their cases should transfer.

They hope not.

Another wish list thing for this week was a right of appeal after these courts

but of course folding them into the Supreme court utterly defeats that premise.

Basically they are trying any and all legal theories to get him off the hook,

even if the completely contradict each other. Legal wizards one and all... NOT!

Clearly the legal tack they took under Samak and Somchai was not close to enough pressure exerted to quash the cases. He has had to leverage the redshirts and any number of impossible promises and his sisters reputation to get back into position to change the game to his benefit,

And as yet it's not clear they have a workable plan.

The floods certainly through them far, far off schedule. And the machinations they tried did not slip by a vigilent opposition who trumpeted them to a now, post flood, more wary greater public. They did ease in the committee, not parliament chicanery to give cover for Yingluck when the changes turn out to be not what were advertised.

Edited February 29, 2012 by animatic

[bigbamboo]

Fewer courts means fewer judges..... which should be a plus, as long as it's the good ones who are retained.

[anterian]

Many countries, Including England do not have a constitutional court (but then we don't have a constitution ), we do have a supreme court, which to my disgust is often overruled by the European Court.

[animatic]

Fewer courts means fewer judges..... which should be a plus, as long as it's the good ones who are retained.

Those are the ones they DON'T want.

They want a pliable judiciary, like all the ministries and other political entities are typically.

Of course that concept is precisely the opposite of a proper judiciaries job.

Edited February 29, 2012 by animatic

[Buchholz]

Pheu Thai party-list MP and legal expert Watana Muangsook's proposal that the Constitution Court and Administrative Court be dissolved

Thaksin style democracy- no checks and balances. Watana opened his mouth too early.

He definitely feels the pulse of the people... not.

The other paper today describes the ABAC Poll earlier this week, 92.2% said the Administrative Court and the Constitution Court are essential to a democratic administration.

.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[OzMick]

Pheu Thai party-list MP and legal expert Watana Muangsook's proposal that the Constitution Court and Administrative Court be dissolved

Thaksin style democracy- no checks and balances. Watana opened his mouth too early.

He definitely feels the pulse of the people... not.

The other paper today describes the ABAC Poll earlier this week, 92.2% said the Administrative Court and the Constitution Court are essential to a democratic administration.

.

Ample reason to do away with them.

[birdpooguava]

Shouldn't be too hard to get a trumped up, politically motivated court decision changed, should it?

[OzMick]

Shouldn't be too hard to get a trumped up, politically motivated court decision changed, should it?

The first step is to lodge an appeal, or attempt to bribe the judge, depending on your attitude to the judiciary. What makes it difficult is having the latter fail publicly and the former having its time limit expired. Tough TIT.

[Buchholz]

Shouldn't be too hard to get a trumped up, politically motivated court decision changed, should it?

The first step is to lodge an appeal, or attempt to bribe the judge, depending on your attitude to the judiciary. What makes it difficult is having the latter fail publicly and the former having its time limit expired. Tough TIT.

And failing that, as per the OP, the next step is to simply remove the two entire courts lock, stock, and barrel.

.

[Buchholz]

ABAC Poll:

More than 90% of people consider Administrative & Constitutional courts as essential under democratic rule

BANGKOK, 18 March 2012 (NNT) - The latest public survey found that more than 9 in 10 of Thais still view both the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court as essential bodies under democratic rule.

-- NNT 2012-03-18

[Sakeopete]

Less judges less lunch boxes full of lettuce.