Fearful court to go public on charter

The Nation

Nuttawut

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Court will hold a media conference later this week to explain to the public about its controversial order for Parliament to halt the third reading of the charter amendment bill, the Court's spokesperson Somrith Chaiwong said yesterday.

Somrith said the court is under pressure from those who want to sign a petition to seek the expulsion of its judges following their ruling made last week. No extra security measures have been taken to protect the judges however, said the spokesman although some judges have expressed their discomfort to him.

President of the Constitution Court, Vasan Soipisut has assigned agencies to compile information and data in defense of the court’s ruling and to refute through the media the arguments and criticism that the court has no authority to make a ruling in such a manner.

In a related development, Deputy Minister of Agriculture and red-shirt co-leader Nattawut Saikua said judges should not be in a rush to make such a ruling and it appeared they were acting beyond their jurisdiction.

Nattawut said such a ruling would have no binding effect on the Parliament. He said there were doubts about how yellow-shirt leaders may be related to the Constitution Court as they announced before the ruling that there would be good news from the court.

He urged all eight judges to ask themselves whether they were committed to the democratic system or to an aristocratic system.

Nattawut said the Parliament would proceed with the third reading of the bill as it believes it has the right to do so, while red shirts will continue to collect signatures in order to remove the judges from the court.

Veteran legal expert Meechai Ruechuphan, has written on his website (www.meechaithailand.com) a defence of the court’s ruling, saying it is binding on Parliament.

Meechai said the matter can be interpreted in two ways. One is to have the court directly make the ruling without having to wait for the Office of the Attorney General to forward the petition.

He added that paragraph five of Article 216 of the charter stated clearly that rulings by the Constitution Court are to be considered as finite and binding on the Parliament, Cabinet, other courts and other government bodies.

When asked its opinion of the proper procedure, the Office of the Attorney General Office said it was up to the Constitution Court to handle the matter. The Office wished not to interfere with the court’s ruling.

It refused also to comment on the intention of Parliament to carry on with the third reading.

In another related development, Secretary of the Council of State Atchaporn Jaruchinda admitted that the court’s ruling is unprecedented and had never occurred elsewhere in the world.

Atchaporn urged both sides to use reason to resolve the differences and added that the Constitution requires that the third reading be voted upon within 15 days.

-- The Nation 2012-06-06

The Constitution Court, or any Thai court MUST NOT explain to the public about any controversial verdict. This will cause a precedent, and cause them to explain all ruling, especially on 112 LM cases.

In Thailand, all court decision HAVE to be obey, and no one can question them. If you question any court, you could possibly go to jail.

World court does not apply, and their verdict on the Thai-Cambodia border MUST be ignored.

The Constitution Court, or any Thai court MUST NOT explain to the public about any controversial verdict. This will cause a precedent, and cause them to explain all ruling, especially on 112 LM cases.

In Thailand, all court decision HAVE to be obey, and no one can question them. If you question any court, you could possibly go to jail.

World court does not apply, and their verdict on the Thai-Cambodia border MUST be ignored.

I disagree with you on this, one of the whole issues with the LM law is that there is absolutely no transparency in it at all which opens it up to abuse. If the Consitutional court make a ruling which is in line with the law, i fail to see what can be gained by not expressing how the ruling was arrived at.

By refusing to clarify, it will only mean that people will be suspicious of them as a whole- which in itself is a far more dangerous precendent to set.

In this case, I have no doubt that the CC have perfectly valid legal reasons for their action, so i fail to see any harm in informing people of the reasons behind it, in fact surely it is best for all parties including the CC to explain any judgements. Hiding behind a veil of secrecy is not going to help anyone.

In fact re-reading your post, i think you may being looking for a bite and if thats the case, you have a little nibble here

In serious cases, and this is a serious case, a court will provide the basis, the reasoning for its decision.

In the interest of maintaining civil order and the integrity of the court, the full judgement must be made public. If there is a basis in law, then what is there to hide?

Fearful court to go public on charter

The Nation...

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Court will hold a media conference later this week to explain to the public about its controversial order for Parliament to halt the third reading of the charter amendment bill, the Court's spokesperson Somrith Chaiwong said yesterday.

...In another related development, Secretary of the Council of State Atchaporn Jaruchinda admitted that the courts ruling is unprecedented and had never occurred elsewhere in the world.

-- The Nation 2012-06-06

As far as he knows as of the moment he spoke.

Which of course makes it hyperbol and not fact.

Of course it is proper, and necessary to give a public statement explaining their reasoning.

The Cambo border and world court decisions are red herrings and have no point in this discussion.

Well it was nice of Nattawut not to publish the judges' names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and names of family members, at least yet, and this time.

But don't worry, the judges have it firmly in the back of their minds that they could be subject to mob intimidation and violence.

Yay, red democracy!

I think it is a very good thing they explain, simply because of the part of the law they are using to challenge the changes to the charter.

In serious cases, and this is a serious case, a court will provide the basis, the reasoning for its decision.

In the interest of maintaining civil order and the integrity of the court, the full judgement must be made public. If there is a basis in law, then what is there to hide?

I just agreed with something that GK wrote.

That must be the first time this year.

some of you may want to read this thread and pay particular attention to post 26

Thai courts can have interesting reasoning. Take the Yingluck perjury case.

I find myself also in agreement with GK on this one... either hes put a spell on me or hes actually saying something sensible for once

Thai courts can have interesting reasoning. Take the Yingluck perjury case.

AFAIK that was decided by Tarit changing the definition of perjury and recommending to the AG that the case be dropped - no court involved except for that where the offence occurred.

When the court publishes/explains its decision in what it considers quite plain and simple language, there will still be large parts of the population unable to understand either the terms used or the logic involved. Fortunately, they will have Nattawut, Jatuporn, Weng et al to explain it to them.

Parliament legal team: Constitution Court order delaying 3rd reading of Constitution amendment not binding; vote on 3rd reading is not unlawful /MCOT

In a related development, Deputy Minister of Agriculture and red-shirt co-leader Nattawut Saikua said judges should not be in a rush to make such a ruling and it appeared they were acting beyond their jurisdiction.

In another development it has been proposed that only people without legal knowledge may comment on courts and judges. For more serious subjects like Agriculture relevant knowledge will remain required of course

Perhaps Nattawut should stick to cabbages and potatoes.

I think it is a very good thing they explain, simply because of the part of the law they are using to challenge the changes to the charter.

I agree.

In another thread reasonableman posted the relevant constitutional clauses,

And it woud appear they have valid rights and reasons to act.

But explaining to the public would be prudent,

if only to limit the lies soon to be told against them.

Parliament legal team: Constitution Court order delaying 3rd reading of Constitution amendment not binding; vote on 3rd reading is not unlawful /MCOT

Strewth, who would be a lawyer in Thailand these days. The parliament needs a legal team to tell it what it can and cannot legally do????????????

Did this interpretation come with a disclaimer at the bottom?

Perhaps Nattawut should stick to cabbages and potatoes.

Or just being a cabbage or potatoe.

Parliament legal team: Constitution Court order delaying 3rd reading of Constitution amendment not binding; vote on 3rd reading is not unlawful /MCOT

Strewth, who would be a lawyer in Thailand these days. The parliament needs a legal team to tell it what it can and cannot legally do????????????

Did this interpretation come with a disclaimer at the bottom?

Actually that was PTPs legal team.

It seems the ruling party can't understand the rules they make, in relation to the national rules.

But then again this is the party that has sent more politicans to political limbo than any other in Thai history.

Samak, Noppadom, and the list goes on and on

Parliament legal team: Constitution Court order delaying 3rd reading of Constitution amendment not binding; vote on 3rd reading is not unlawful /MCOT

Strewth, who would be a lawyer in Thailand these days. The parliament needs a legal team to tell it what it can and cannot legally do????????????

Did this interpretation come with a disclaimer at the bottom?

Actually that was PTPs legal team.

It seems the ruling party can't understand the rules they make, in relation to the national rules.

But then again this is the party that has sent more politicans to political limbo than any other in Thai history.

Samak, Noppadom, and the list goes on and on

You know this is probably something they could pull of, incrementally, over the course of 3 - 4 succesively successful administrations, but they always. always always overreach and someone gets left holding Thaksins baggage. He's like a born loser or something.

untitled.bmp

In serious cases, and this is a serious case, a court will provide the basis, the reasoning for its decision.

In the interest of maintaining civil order and the integrity of the court, the full judgement must be made public. If there is a basis in law, then what is there to hide?

It is not hiding. It is not setting a precedent. Else court will have to to explain all ruling from today, as the loosing party in all ruling will want to know the reason why they lost. This increase court work load.

Parliament legal team: Constitution Court order delaying 3rd reading of Constitution amendment not binding; vote on 3rd reading is not unlawful /MCOT

Strewth, who would be a lawyer in Thailand these days. The parliament needs a legal team to tell it what it can and cannot legally do????????????

Did this interpretation come with a disclaimer at the bottom?

Actually that was PTPs legal team.

It seems the ruling party can't understand the rules they make, in relation to the national rules.

But then again this is the party that has sent more politicans to political limbo than any other in Thai history.

Samak, Noppadom, and the list goes on and on

You know this is probably something they could pull of, incrementally, over the course of 3 - 4 succesively successful administrations, but they always. always always overreach and someone gets left holding Thaksins baggage. He's like a born loser or something.

untitled.bmp

I suspect they have pulled this off already,

Even before the 111, some fell on their swords, or stepped on their puds in public and had forced vacations.

Considering PTP is third string TRT, and PPP was TRT second string. Yes indeed dubious record holders for sure.

Or is that Dubai r us.

In serious cases, and this is a serious case, a court will provide the basis, the reasoning for its decision.

In the interest of maintaining civil order and the integrity of the court, the full judgement must be made public. If there is a basis in law, then what is there to hide?

It is not hiding. It is not setting a precedent. Else court will have to to explain all ruling from today, as the loosing party in all ruling will want to know the reason why they lost. This increase court work load.

No change of workload, all courts explain their rulings as a matter of course.

Bigger cases get public forums, but all cases are explained.

When the court publishes/explains its decision in what it considers quite plain and simple language, there will still be large parts of the population unable to understand either the terms used or the logic involved. Fortunately, they will have Nattawut, Jatuporn, Weng et al to explain it to them.

Mai! Mai! Mai!

Nattawut never fails to impress with his admirable grasp of so many issues, his encyclopaedic knowledge of the law, and his ability to juggle so many balls at the same time . . .

A pity that, in urging [heaven forbid it should be viewed as a threat] the eight judges to ask themselves whether they were committed to democracy or aristocracy, he overlooked the PTP's favoured system: autocracy.

Parliament legal team: Constitution Court order delaying 3rd reading of Constitution amendment not binding; vote on 3rd reading is not unlawful /MCOT

Strewth, who would be a lawyer in Thailand these days. The parliament needs a legal team to tell it what it can and cannot legally do????????????

Did this interpretation come with a disclaimer at the bottom?

Quite possibly.. BUT i Doubt that Calerm will read it

sent from my knee phone