Pheu Thai Party's Statement In Defiance Of High Court

[webfact]

Pheu Thai Party's statement in defiance of high court

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Pheu Thai Party on Tuesday issued a statement lambasting the Constitution Court for overstepping its mandate to suspend the vote on charter change bill.

The party also urged Parliament to proceed with the final passage of the bill despite the court injunction.

"The Constitution Court has no jurisdiction to act beyond the mandate sanctioned by the Constitution," the ruling party said in its statement.

The party's statement argued that the high court had erred in citing Article 68 of the Constitution to order the voting postponement.

Under Article 68, the high court could intervene only after the Office of the Attorney General had found cause to suspect the unconstitutionality of the bill and petitioned for a judicial review.

According to the statement, the high court had no mandate to accept the complaints filed by individuals or organisations which are not set up the organic laws.

Last Friday, the high court cited five complaints as grounds for launching the judicial inquiry into the legality of the bill.

The nine-judge panel ruled to justify the injunction in light of the urgency as Parliament was poised to vote on the final passage of the bill.

If the bill was designed to change the democratic rule with the King as head of state as feared, it would be too late to intervene after the passage of the bill, court president Wasan Soypisudh said.

The ruling party countered that the high court had no jurisdiction to trepass on the legislature. It said the injunction was wrongful and unforceable.

The high court should reflect on its performance and Parliament should, meanwhile, proceed to enact the bill as planned, it said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-05

[OzMick]

Hmm......Plan B went down like a lead balloon, time to revitalise Plan A. Better push it along a bit, favourite BIL has to retire in 4 months.

[Yunla]

My guess is that PTP have never heard the phrase 'losing gracefully', or that it is highly honourable to back down when a cause is lost.

I don't see how this bill situation can be resolved diplomatically when all the PTP's language and actions suggests that they do not respect anyone except PTP, and will not take "no" for an answer under any circumstances. As usual with them, I hope I am wrong.

[ratcatcher]

Hmm......Plan B went down like a lead balloon, time to revitalise Plan A. Better push it along a bit, favourite BIL has to retire in 4 months.

Yessiree, ratcheting up the pressure a little bit every day.

There's a lot of faces going to be lost on this tug of war going on.

Meanwhile Brother Number One sits in air-con comfort in Dubai watching the circus.

[gand]

PTP to pass bill to disband the Constitutional Court, Civil War to follow?

[pakorn7]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

[Moruya]

It's difficult to feel sorry for people who pick fights and get their noses bloodied.

PTP are used to being the bully boys and don't seem to take kindly to landing on their collective posteriors.

[TomTao]

Next on the PTP agenda after ramming the 'reconcilliation bill' through, court reform.

[h90]

My guess is that PTP have never heard the phrase 'losing gracefully', or that it is highly honourable to back down when a cause is lost.

I don't see how this bill situation can be resolved diplomatically when all the PTP's language and actions suggests that they do not respect anyone except PTP, and will not take "no" for an answer under any circumstances. As usual with them, I hope I am wrong.

it isn't lost they can still get that law...maybe with killing people and and huge damage for the country, but that doesn't matter if the money of Thaksin must be secured.

[h90]

Next on the PTP agenda after ramming the 'reconcilliation bill' through, court reform.

After calling this "reconcilliation bill", how would the name the bill that disbands the constitution court?

[webfact]

Pheu Thai challenges Constitution Court order

BANGKOK, June 5 - Thailand's ruling Pheu Thai Party on Tuesday issued its position statement saying the Constitution Court has no authority to order the suspension of House deliberation of the draft charter amendment and asked the Court to review its decision.

The Pheu Thai move came as the Court agreed to consider the legality of the draft constitutional amendment and issue an injunction to suspend the process until a formal court ruling, as it accepted five petitions lodged by a group of Senators and Democrat MPs questioning the legality of the draft.

The vote on the third reading of the amendment was earlier set for today but the action could not proceed after the court action.

Reading the party statement, Pheu Thai Secretary-General Jarupong Ruangsuwan said Article 68 of Constitution states that a petition on such a case must be submitted via the Office of the Attorney-General to consider whether or not the request has grounds before forwarding the case to the Court.

On this case, the petitioners filed their complaint to the OAG and then submitted it to the Constitution Court without deliberation by the OAG, the statement said, meaning the court accepted to consider the case before the OAG considered it.

The statement reiterated that the Constitution Court could not act beyond its authority and the rule of law and that its order to suspend the parliamentary process was done without authority.

The Pheu Thai reasoned there is no need for the Parliament to follow the court order.

The statement noted that the legislative power is one of the three powers of the Sovereignty and is not under the judicial power.

The OAG however on Tuesday said it would not infringe the decision of the Constitution Court and that it will further discuss the matter on Thursday.

Pheu Thai party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the party issued the statement believing that the court order might violate the constitution.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung asserted that the Constitution Court has no authority to order the suspension of the vote on the third reading of the draft.

Mr Chalerm said he believed the judges could face impeachment if the court still insists on its order.

Regarding the petition of the opposition Democrat Party lawmakers calling on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to issue a draft royal decree closing the current House session to defuse political standoff, Mr Chalerm said the issue was not raised at today’s Cabinet meeting.

In the latest development, some key leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the red shirt movement, said they will gather supporters at the Government Complex on Chaeng Wattana Road tomorrow to show their opposition to the Constitution Court decision.

Weng Tojirakarn, a leading UDD leader who is also a Pheu Thai MP, said the court decision is unlawful and that it has no authority to issue an injunction to suspend the parliamentary process.

Mr Weng added that the Red Shirts will collect signatures to seek the impeachment of the Court's judges, and that it will take about two weeks to collect the names.

However, the move had nothing to do with the Pheu Thai party as it was not a resolution of all the UDD key leaders. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-06-05

[carra]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

[jayjayjayjay]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

[gregb]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

It is true that it wasn't followed to the letter, however if the OAG did his job, then the case would have wound up before the Constitution Court anyway. So you are arguing a procedural detail when there was very likely to be violence by any delay.

It amazes me some people would rather have fighting than a very much needed delay. The Constitution Court even stated as such when they accepted the cases without waiting for the OAG. It is quite acceptable in periods of emergency for a court to expand their purview in order to accomplish a critically important task where lives or other serious consequences are at stake. Witness the US Supreme Court during the 2000 election. If everything was to be followed exactly, then Florida should have been allowed to complete its count first before the US Supreme Court could accept the challenge of the vote being unconstitutional. But they expanded their powers and intervened early to put a stop to the counting because of the importance of what was at stake.

The same is true here. A procedural rule is irrelevant when they were sure to receive the case anyway if the attorney general did his responsibility, and there was a critical need to stop a very destabilizing situation which very likely would have lead to bloodshed.

I applaud the justices for having the courage to make this call. Every one can breathe easier knowing there will be no bullets flying today. Those who attack them should truly ask themselves would they prefer deaths on their conscience simply because the attorney general was lazy, corrupt and/or politically unmotivated to do his job?

I don't want bloodshed. It seems the PTP supporters do. They are sure pushing hard enough for civil war.

Edited June 5, 2012 by gregb

[pakorn7]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

It is correct. Not because I say so?

It is because the court say so.

And in Thailand, no one can question the court.

The Thai court is always right.

if you do not respect court verdict, or question it, you go to jail.

[gregb]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

The period of "judicial politics" started way before that. At least as far back as 2000 when they cleared Thaksin of wrong doing in his asset concealment case in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was guilty.

[Thai at Heart]

It is still beyond me how often it appears that this committee, or this court, or this judicial process, or this ministry, "may" have circumvented the law. What on earth is the point in ANY constitution, if the roles of those involved are clearly defined?

[Thai at Heart]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

The period of "judicial politics" started way before that. At least as far back as 2000 when they cleared Thaksin of wrong doing in his asset concealment case in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was guilty.

Oh, and how they cheered..................

[lannarebirth]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

The period of "judicial politics" started way before that. At least as far back as 2000 when they cleared Thaksin of wrong doing in his asset concealment case in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was guilty.

Oh, and how they cheered..................

Ground Zero, where lies the poison tree that has beared so much poisonous fruit.

[TomTao]

Next on the PTP agenda after ramming the 'reconcilliation bill' through, court reform.

After calling this "reconcilliation bill", how would the name the bill that disbands the constitution court?

Probably no need to introduce a bill to disband the constitutional court, just load the court with judges that are sympathetic to the government's agenda, problem solved.

[gand]

It is TS amnesty that is important, not the dead red shirts or the other dead Thais?

Thaksin Bargains With the Dead Red Shirts

http://2bangkok.com/thaksin-set-to-return.html

[maidu]

Have you ever had a stray cat in a cardboard box? It goes nuts. Then, when it wiggles its way out of the folded closed box (even though you're trying with all your strength to keep the box shut) - it gets in the room. Then it dashes around manically, smashing in to windows and doors, trying to find a way out. That's what I think of, when I think of PT senior members. They're manically trying to do everything, reasonable or not, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, to get their guru back and put 46 billion baht in his already deep pockets.

[lannarebirth]

It is TS amnesty that is important, not the dead red shirts or the other dead Thais?

Thaksin Bargains With the Dead Red Shirts

http://2bangkok.com/...-to-return.html

Just shows how slow the Red Shirts are to grasp certain events. Even a presumably politically astute cartoonist. Thaksin would have never had them killed if it wasn't his intention to bargain with their corpses.

[philw]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

[philw]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

It is correct. Not because I say so?

It is because the court say so.

And in Thailand, no one can question the court.

The Thai court is always right.

if you do not respect court verdict, or question it, you go to jail.

Yes, and perhaps that could be part of the problem.....................

[ThaiOats]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

With Thaksin and PTP at the helm it's politics that champions business ethics such that their aim is to monopolize everything. Buy all the politicians, buy all the officials, buy all the votes, and they can control everything or so they thought. Luckily, some people have moral ethics and loyal enough not to be easily bought. The PTP coalition is a gathering of many parties (which were more than likely bought) while the Democrats are the true grassroots Democratic party that slowly try to earn their reputation and members.

Edited June 5, 2012 by ThaiOats

[smutcakes]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

Have you got any proof of the above, or you have just assumed it all because it suits your point of view?

[Crushdepth]

PTP to pass bill to disband the Constitutional Court, Civil War to follow?

They already proposed disbanding the court some time back, for 'interfering with executive power' (seriously!).

[Crushdepth]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Given a choice between the opinion of nine Constitution Court judges, or that of some politicians twice disbanded for electoral fraud who are in thrall with a criminal fugitive wannabe dictator, I'll take the judges advice, thanks.

There is absolutely a credibility problem here, and it does not lie with the court.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Crushdepth

[noahvail]

Next on the PTP agenda after ramming the 'reconcilliation bill' through, court reform.

After calling this "reconcilliation bill", how would the name the bill that disbands the constitution court?

"A Bill to Reduce Excessive and Unnecessary Spending and to Streamline Governmental Efficiency" ..........perhaps........