Charter Amendment Is Legal: Attorney General

[webfact]

CONTROVERSIAL BILL

Charter amendment is legal: Attorney General

The Nation

Changes not aimed at overthrow of political system; fiery debate looms

BANGKOK: - The Attorney General's Office said yesterday that government-sponsored bills to amend the Constitution were not aimed at overthrowing the political system, as has been alleged in petitions filed separately by five groups of people.

Winai Damrongmongkolkul, a spokesman for the agency, told a press conference last night the Attorney-General decided not to forward the petitions to the Constitution Court. "The amendment bills will not result in changes to the political system that are unconstitutional," he said.

But the agency's decision would not interfere with decisions by any other agency or organisation, the spokesman said. This referred to the Constitution Court's decision last week to accept for judicial review five petitions filed directly with the court.

Confrontation between proponents and opponents of constitutional amendment is expected to flare up again at today's joint sitting of the two Houses in Parliament.

There are signs that government MPs will defy a Constitution Court order to postpone a parliamentary vote on the final reading of the bill for charter changes, pending a court ruling on the draft. A hearing on this is scheduled to begin early next month.

Politicians in the ruling coalition say that the court has no power to suspend the legislative process - a viewpoint strongly disputed by the Constitution Court president, Wasant Soypisut, who has insisted on the judges' authority under the charter and their neutrality.

The atmosphere in Parliament could be highly charged, as the ruling Pheu Thai Party has reportedly assigned some 20 MPs to question the court's order, amid claims that it amounts to judicial interference into the administrative and legislative branches.

On the opposition bench, the Democrat Party has threatened to fight against any move viewed as an attempt to absolve former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his cohorts of wrongdoings. Democrat MPs aggressively protested against the Speaker during last week's Lower House meeting, which resulted in postponement of a debate on the four controversial reconciliation bills.

At today's joint meeting between the Senate and the House of Representatives, a vote on the constitutional amendment bill - postponed from Tuesday - is not on the meeting agendas, which include approving the government's treaties with foreign countries and organisations.

However, House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranond, who also doubles as the Parliament president, is expected to inform the meeting about the court decision to accept for judicial review the petitions against the proponents of writing a new constitution.

Five groups of people filed separate petitions with the court, accusing the Cabinet, the coalition Pheu Thai and Chart Thai Pattana parties, and their politicians of attempting to overturn the country's political system by proposing amendment bills to allow drafting of a new constitution.

Coalition whips have pointed to the likelihood of some MPs asking the parliamentarians to decide if they will vote to accept the charter change bill without waiting for the court ruling.

Sources said yesterday it was likely government MPs would push for a joint sitting of the two Houses to be held next Tuesday so a voting on the third reading can be carried out.

Meanwhile, red-shirt supporters of the government yesterday stepped up their impeachment campaign against the Constitution Court judges. Reds chairwoman Thida Thawornseth delivered a passionate speech to kick-start the rally at Parliament aiming to oust judges on the top court.

"A round of applause for the people today for refusing to bow down to extra-constitutional power, be it tanks, bullets or the scales of justice," she said in a punchline concluding her speech.

Thida said the red shirts deemed it necessary to rally because of an unprecedented move to stage a coup not by the military but by the Constitution Court. She said the high court was a disgrace to the judiciary and a disappointment to the people because the judges were trying to invoke the law against, instead of for the people.

The high court had interpreted the charter provisions without any justification, with the aim to usurp power, a form of judicial coup, she claimed, in reference to the court order to suspend the passage of the charter change bill. The power to change or not to change the charter, was vested in the people not the judiciary or any other agencies, she said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-08

[Buchholz]

The Attorney General's Office said yesterday that government-sponsored bills to amend the Constitution were not aimed at overthrowing the political system, as has been alleged in petitions filed separately by five groups of people.

Winai Damrongmongkolkul, a spokesman for the agency, told a press conference last night the Attorney-General decided not to forward the petitions to the Constitution Court. "The amendment bills will not result in changes to the political system that are unconstitutional," he said.

Unsurprising interpretation by the same Attorney-General office that decided not to prosecute Jatuporn.

No change in the flow chart of power since that time.

He went on to say that the Office of the Attorney General would have the final say on whether to prosecute Jatuporn.

The Office, of which, quite conveniently, falls under under the supervision

of this guy...

fellow party member of the accused...

Justice Minister

Pheu Thai Party MP

Police General

Pracha Promnog

[JohnAllan]

Winai Damrongmongkolkul said "The amendment bills will not result in changes to the political system that are unconstitutional/," Unconstitutional under which constitution?

[moe666]

If the dems try and stall the bill again will the ptp allow red shirts into parliment to restore order.

[smedly]

Do none of these people know what dept they work in "Charter amendment is legal: Attorney General"

This has nothing to do with the AG - better for this office to stay out of it - but of course the are firmly in bed with PTP - what a disgraceful shame these corrupt individuals are allowed to breath

[Thaddeus]

This has nothing to do with the AG - better for this office to stay out of it - but of course the are firmly in bed with PTP - what a disgraceful shame these corrupt individuals are allowed to breath

Funny that, because of all the shenanigans that has been going on recently I spent a few hours today reading up on the Constitution Court, the Senate etc who they are, how they get appointed/elected, what they are responsible for, the powers that they have and how they can be approached.

Didn't see the words Attorney General once..... until this topic appeared.

[volk666]

Current AG was appointed when Democrats were in power.

Question - does an AG have the right to rule what's legal and what's not? I understand that he can decide if there's a case to be made, not the legality itself.

Btw, this is also a preview of how Thaksin will be prosecuted under the "normal" legal system if the reconciliation bill goes through - AG will say that there's nothing to prosecute there, everybody just move on. We've had this before, when Finance Minister ruled that there were no taxes due on Shin Corp sales and that stopped all inquires into tax evasion at once.

[Thai at Heart]

This has nothing to do with the AG - better for this office to stay out of it - but of course the are firmly in bed with PTP - what a disgraceful shame these corrupt individuals are allowed to breath

Funny that, because of all the shenanigans that has been going on recently I spent a few hours today reading up on the Constitution Court, the Senate etc who they are, how they get appointed/elected, what they are responsible for, the powers that they have and how they can be approached.

Didn't see the words Attorney General once..... until this topic appeared.

From what I can understand, this is the "office/branch" which is supposed to vet which cases/complaints get forwarded to the various courts.

http://saynotoviolence.org/user/762

Organization Description:

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is the principal agency responsible for criminal prosecution, provision of legal advice to state agencies, representation of government in court and for international cooperation in criminal matters. It is also the duty of the OAG to protect civil rights and provide legal aid to the needy. The OAG's vision is to be an intelligent and innovative criminal justice administration organization which represents the state and serves people fairly.

Everyone seems to be very confused about where everyone else's legal barriers should be drawn, but, if it is a political appointment, this leads to one very obvious question.

Who the hell made it a political appointment for vetting matters concerning the constitution? Which dummy wrote that bit of the constitution, as though they couldn't see that if you have the situation whereby Parliament can modify the constitution on a majority in Parliament, that the organisation responsible for hearing complaints of unconstitutional activities or laws is appointed by the very people who are changing the constitution.

Duhhhhhhh................

[Thaddeus]

Well the key part of that is.

Organization Description:

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is the principal agency responsible for criminal prosecution, provision of legal advice to state agencies, representation of government in court and for international cooperation in criminal matters.

The key words being Criminal Prosecution.

When it involves The Constitution Court or The Senate, they aren't even in the loop.

[binjalin]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

[sabye]

I think something to remember is that it is the job of the Parliament to make the laws and it is the job of the courts to rule on the laws as they stand or to rule on their legality of the new laws that are in inconflict with other laws. This makes it a bit tough as the Constitution is the top law in the country. None the less it is IMHO that the constitution court should wait to see what passes in Parliament before making any decisions as to its legality. Any one who does not like the new changes may challenge them in the Constitution Court and seek a ruling as to there legality. There have been challenges to other constitutional changes in many other countries that have the changes over turned. The court may also agree with the changes after they are made if they do not conflict with other laws of the land.

[bigbamboo]

It seems the rules are so convoluted that everyone is confused.

A bit like Thai Immigration.

[MikeOboe57]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

I can understand that in a country, where not even the simplest traffic laws are enforced, it is very difficult to get a grasp at the idea that even an elected government is bound by the rule of law.

[volk666]

... the constitution court should wait to see what passes in Parliament before making any decisions as to its legality....

The Court obviously disagrees.

Also lawmakers could be breaking the law in the process, by proposing to change democratic system with the King as the head of state, for example. Even proposing such a thing is illegal so there's no need to wait for the final passage.

I'm not saying Const. amendment law proposes anything of the kind but that's what the petitions are mostly about - that new law grants the drafting assembly the power to change the very definition of Thai state.

[Buchholz]

... the constitution court should wait to see what passes in Parliament before making any decisions as to its legality....

The Court obviously disagrees.

Also lawmakers could be breaking the law in the process, by proposing to change democratic system with the King as the head of state, for example. Even proposing such a thing is illegal so there's no need to wait for the final passage.

I'm not saying Const. amendment law proposes anything of the kind but that's what the petitions are mostly about - that new law grants the drafting assembly the power to change the very definition of Thai state.

Which all makes it well within the purview of the Constituitonal Court to intervene and stop the proceedings.

Until the Pheu Thai Party can categorically state, and back it up with evidence, that that is not their intent, it's kapoot.

Apparently in the various requests for the court's intervention there is evidence submitted that that is the Pheu Thai Party's intent.

AFAIK the Pheu Thai Party has not submitted any evidence to the contrary.

The Court obviously saw something of substance in these requests that they agreed to look into the matter further and in the meantime issued their injunction against its further pursuit for the moment.

.....................................................

edit to add: wonder if there was some intentional dry humor in the website naming for the Attorney General's office...

A Go-Go

http://www.ago.go.th/

Edited June 8, 2012 by Buchholz

[smutcakes]

Which all makes it well within the purview of the Constituitonal Court to intervene and stop the proceedings.

Until the Pheu Thai Party can categorically state, and back it up with evidence, that that is not their intent, it's kapoot.

Apparently in the various requests for the court's intervention there is evidence submitted that that is the Pheu Thai Party's intent.

AFAIK the Pheu Thai Party has not submitted any evidence to the contrary.

The Court obviously saw something of substance in these requests that they agreed to look into the matter further and in the meantime issued their injunction against its further pursuit for the moment.

.....................................................

edit to add: wonder if there was some intentional dry humor in the website naming for the Attorney General's office...

A Go-Go

http://www.ago.go.th/

Where have you heard this? personally I cannot see what they are proposing has any threat to the higher instituition at all.

I dont think the bill should be approved, but the CC sticking their beak in like this in an unprecendented manner reaks of something fishy going on.

[binjalin]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

I can understand that in a country, where not even the simplest traffic laws are enforced, it is very difficult to get a grasp at the idea that even an elected government is bound by the rule of law.

elected governments MAKE laws - that's what they are there for ELECTED by citizens

[phiphidon]

Which all makes it well within the purview of the Constituitonal Court to intervene and stop the proceedings.

Until the Pheu Thai Party can categorically state, and back it up with evidence, that that is not their intent, it's kapoot.

Apparently in the various requests for the court's intervention there is evidence submitted that that is the Pheu Thai Party's intent.

AFAIK the Pheu Thai Party has not submitted any evidence to the contrary.

The Court obviously saw something of substance in these requests that they agreed to look into the matter further and in the meantime issued their injunction against its further pursuit for the moment.

clip

http://www.ago.go.th/

Where have you heard this? personally I cannot see what they are proposing has any threat to the higher instituition at all.

I dont think the bill should be approved, but the CC sticking their beak in like this in an unprecendented manner reaks of something fishy going on.

Well thats just it, the Democrat Party are working on a supposition that the constitutional changes are a threat to the higher authority. They have been using this scare tactic for some time but now it will backfire on them.

The Attorney General (how he fits into the loop is explained in the link I provide) has concluded that there is nothing to show that there are any threats and so will the constitutional court once they've seen through all the fuss generated by the dems and the yellow shirts.

After all is said and done this bill is only about setting up the CDA - once that has been set up, then and only then can the process of beginning to ammend the constitution begin - so where is the threat to the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution?

BP: This is the absurdity of the whole thing. Doing X is against the constitution. No one has done X. They are just suspicions that some people may do X. Court launches proactive inquiry into whether X may occur and mentions it is worried that there is no explicit mention that you cannot do X. This raises the question, why do you need an explicit provision not to do X if doing X is unconstitutional in the first place? What other provisions do we need saying explicitly what other illegal or unconstitutional conduct that the drafters will no do. This is aside from the issue that even if there was a proposal to do X it would have to go to parliament again and the court step in then…

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83703/constitution-court-pushes-thailand-towards-a-potential-constitutional-crisis/

[Thaddeus]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

I can understand that in a country, where not even the simplest traffic laws are enforced, it is very difficult to get a grasp at the idea that even an elected government is bound by the rule of law.

elected governments MAKE laws - that's what they are there for ELECTED by citizens

No, they don't make the laws, they can propose bills and amendments, which may be accepted in to law.

However, should a bill or amendment be found to be unconstitutional (and the constitution is the highest law in the land and overrides all others) it is within the powers of the Constitution Court to block such proposal until such time that the parts deemed unconstitutional have been removed.

If it wasn't done that way, there would be total chaos.

[phiphidon]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

I can understand that in a country, where not even the simplest traffic laws are enforced, it is very difficult to get a grasp at the idea that even an elected government is bound by the rule of law.

elected governments MAKE laws - that's what they are there for ELECTED by citizens

No, they don't make the laws, they can propose bills and amendments, which may be accepted in to law.

However, should a bill or amendment be found to be unconstitutional (and the constitution is the highest law in the land and overrides all others) it is within the powers of the Constitution Court to block such proposal until such time that the parts deemed unconstitutional have been removed.

If it wasn't done that way, there would be total chaos.

Why are MP's around the world called law makers Thaddeus? If they don't make laws who does?

[bigbamboo]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

So every government that comes to power should be allowed to change laws retrospectively for the benefit of individuals in it's party?

That certainly gives a whole new meaning to the word 'power'.

[volk666]

Part of the complaint, as I understand, is that the bill doesn't outline boundaries of CDA mandate. That means they CAN write a draft changing the definition of the Thai state.

This is also constitution amendment, not a rewrite, rewrites are not permitted under current constitution and so it's reasonable to expect the scope of the amendment included in the bill.

Bottom line - it was mostly delaying tactic by Democrats and they got what they wanted.

PTP should have just included the scope of CDA mandate, case closed. Why haven't they? It's their job to present a bullet proof draft and they shouldn't complain when opposition or courts see holes in it. Just plug them, not start another red revolution against ammarts and what not.

[geriatrickid]

There are two issues at stake here;

1. Is the role of the CC to consider cases of this kind and can it pass binding judgements?

2. Was a case brought that met would allow item 1?

None of those contesting the CC's actions is questioning item 1. The issue is that the CC intervened before there was a case and has therefore interfered with the legal function of the elected representatives.

In plain language, the CC jumped the gun and it seems, based upon the opinions of the constitutional law experts, that the CC should not have intervened at this time, particularly since no case was brought that met the requirements for such a case. People are muddling the two issues. There may very well be a legal basis for the CC to pass a judgement blocking the government's legislation. However, that judgement can not be brought until the bill is actually passed and there is an attempt to apply the law. Once someone there was an attempt to apply the law, that is when it should have been contested and brought before the court for a ruling. One can protest a proposed or pending law, but one cannot challenge the law in a court until the law is actually in place. I believe this is a procedural blunder by the CC that will only undermine the CC's position when the appropriate time comes to consider the legalities of the law. A cockup.

[Thaddeus]

I can understand that in a country, where not even the simplest traffic laws are enforced, it is very difficult to get a grasp at the idea that even an elected government is bound by the rule of law.

elected governments MAKE laws - that's what they are there for ELECTED by citizens

No, they don't make the laws, they can propose bills and amendments, which may be accepted in to law.

However, should a bill or amendment be found to be unconstitutional (and the constitution is the highest law in the land and overrides all others) it is within the powers of the Constitution Court to block such proposal until such time that the parts deemed unconstitutional have been removed.

If it wasn't done that way, there would be total chaos.

Why are MP's around the world called law makers Thaddeus? If they don't make laws who does?

I don't know, it's a bit like calling a blade of grass a field.

Any MP (to give them their accurate title) can make proposals, and if it is voted for by a majority in Parliament, it can proceed.

However, as I said before, if at any time a proposal is found to be unconstitutional it is halted, until it isn't.

[geriatrickid]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

So every government that comes to power should be allowed to change laws retrospectively for the benefit of individuals in it's party?

That certainly gives a whole new meaning to the word 'power'.

Governments can and do pass retroactive legislation. This is done to ensure that laws are harmonized. This is not done when basic civil rights are impacted.

Changes in the law can and do benefit interested parties. When there is a case where such a benefit may be in conflict with another law regarding such a benefit, or has unintended negative consequences, that is when it should be challenged in court. One cannot challenge a law if the law does not exist and right now the proposed government bill is not applicable and is not a law.

[phiphidon]

I don't know, it's a bit like calling a blade of grass a field.

Any MP (to give them their accurate title) can make proposals, and if it is voted for by a majority in Parliament, it can proceed.

However, as I said before, if at any time a proposal is found to be unconstitutional it is halted, until it isn't.

It's because they draft bills, bills become laws if they are accepted by whatever body checks them - depends on the type of democracy, but at the end of the day MP's make what become laws.

[geriatrickid]

I don't know, it's a bit like calling a blade of grass a field.

Any MP (to give them their accurate title) can make proposals, and if it is voted for by a majority in Parliament, it can proceed.

However, as I said before, if at any time a proposal is found to be unconstitutional it is halted, until it isn't.

Yes, a proposal can be halted. However, a court cannot halt such a proposal unless there is an actual conflict with an existing law or such a proposal is contestable. Courts do not rule on proposed legislation as they have no standing in the case. For example, if the government passes a law that says, the police can enter your home to search for drugs without a warrant and then do so and find something and charge you. This law would be in conflict with those that require a search warrant. You could only contest that arrest once the alleged breach was made. There has to be an infringement of your legal rights to contest the search without a warrant. In this case, no conflict has occurred, because the proposed legislation is not in effect.

[nurofiend]

It seems the rules are so convoluted that everyone is confused.

<snip

except for the posters telling me they know for a fact what the legality is, and chastised me for having the cheek to ask them if they knew whether their view was fact or opinion, even saying i was spreading red propaganda for asking such a question!

[phiphidon]

It seems the rules are so convoluted that everyone is confused.

<snip

except for the posters telling me they know for a fact what the legality is, and chastised me for having the cheek to ask them if they knew whether their view was fact or opinion, even saying i was spreading red propaganda for asking such a question!

I think you'll find this is a fairly succinct analysis of what is happening, there's not been a lot of discussion about it, which I find strange, possibly because it doesn't fit certain prefixed ideas?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83703/constitution-court-pushes-thailand-towards-a-potential-constitutional-crisis/

[OzMick]

It seems the rules are so convoluted that everyone is confused.

<snip

except for the posters telling me they know for a fact what the legality is, and chastised me for having the cheek to ask them if they knew whether their view was fact or opinion, even saying i was spreading red propaganda for asking such a question!

I think you'll find this is a fairly succinct analysis of what is happening, there's not been a lot of discussion about it, which I find strange, possibly because it doesn't fit certain prefixed ideas?

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

Or because it's an argument between a pack of high-flying lawyers, and some of realise that the opinion of someone with little or no expertise in the field (including journalists) is worthless.