Constitution Court Turns Down Reds' Demand For Clarification On Charter Ruling: Bangkok

[webfact]

Constitution Court turns down reds' demand for clarification on ruling

Chanikarn Phumhirun

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Court is in no way obliged to provide clarifications on its ruling on charter amendment, court president Wasan Soypisudh said yesterday.

Leaders of the red-shirt Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) yesterday filed a petition demanding that the Constitution Court provide answers to what it calls the "Bt1-billion questions" - two queries the group claims will cost the taxpayers Bt2 billion if a public referendum on charter amendment is held.

DAAD chief Thida Thavornseth led a group of red shirts and Pheu Thai Party MPs to hand in a letter asking the Constitution Court if holding a public referendum is mandatory before the Parliament votes on the third reading of the amendment or if it can proceed without a referendum.

Thida said her group wanted answers to two questions in relation to the court's ruling 18-22/2555 dated July 13, 2012, which said "a public referendum should be held to decide if a new charter is needed or not".

The questions are:

_ Is this ruling legally binding, and if so, which Articles of the Constitution is the ruling based upon, or is it just a suggestion?

_ Did the court issue a ruling against the third reading in Parliament, and if so, which Articles of the Constitution was this ruling based upon?

Thida said these answers were needed because different judges offered conflicting opinions. For instance, Constitution Court judge Chalermpol Ek-uru indicated that almost every Article in the charter could be amended with the exception of Article 291 (1) paragraph 2, while judge Nurak Mapraneet said the 2007 Constitution did not allow any amendments.

According to Thida, of the five Constitution Court judges, one said a public referendum should be held after the charter-amendment draft is completed, while four judges said the decision rested with the legislative branch and the judicial branch could not interfere.

"We believe the court should help the country find a way out of this political impasse. Judges should not pass this responsibility on to the public,'' she said.

Meanwhile, red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Promphan said the Office of the Constitution Court should review its announcement about the court not being obliged to answer questions.

"Each question costs Bt1 billion. If the court says we must hold a public referendum, the country will have to spend Bt2 billion, otherwise the charter can be amended by voting in the third reading for free and the Bt2 billion can be used for the country's development,'' he said.

In response, the court's president Wasan said that though the Constitution Court was not obliged to explain its ruling, the litigants had the right to file a petition according to the civil code.

"A judiciary committee will hold a meeting to look into the petition and see if those who question the ruling truly do not understand or pretend not to understand or are just pretending to be dumb,'' he said.

When asked if the red shirts just wanted an assurance from the court so that they could move forward with the amendment, Wasan said he did not know if it was a move forward or backward.

Asked if the court feared the amendment would result in the Constitution Court being dissolved and merely becoming a division under the Supreme Court, Wasan said it depends on whether the Supreme Court would accept it.

"It is good if we are merged into the Supreme Court, because then anybody who insults the court will go to jail," he said.

-- The Nation 2013-01-11

[Moruya]

"A judiciary committee will hold a meeting to look into the petition and see if those who question the ruling truly do not understand or pretend not to understand or are just pretending to be dumb,'' he said."

Ha ha ha!

"When asked if the red shirts just wanted an assurance from the court so that they could move forward with the amendment, Wasan said he did not know if it was a move forward or backward."

Ha ha ha!

"Asked if the court feared the amendment would result in the Constitution Court being dissolved and merely becoming a division under the Supreme Court, Wasan said it depends on whether the Supreme Court would accept it. "It is good if we are merged into the Supreme Court, because then anybody who insults the court will go to jail," he said."

Ha ha ha!

Some nice comments there!

[KKvampire]

No problem here, Red supporting government have plans to "reform" or "throw out" courts which dont agree with them, They call it democracy.

[Thai at Heart]

We have made an ambiguous ruling, deal with it.

How very very very Thai.

[OzMick]

My question would be "Who's asking?" Some self-appointed (or appointed from afar) head of an organisation with no charter, stated aims, membership list or statement of accounts.

[blaze]

Wouldn't you expect that the questions raised are of interest to ALL Thais? When the court entrusted to interpret the constitution can't even agree on which articles of the constitution can be ammended- shouldn't that be a bit of concern to everyone? Especially those who proclaim this court as a vital part of the system of checks and balances.

Normally wouldn't we expect a constitutional court to base all decisions on interpretations of the constitution and to clearly justify those decisions in terms of the constitution? If not, why call it a constitutional court? Why not just call it 'some old guys with opinions'.

But perhaps in Thailand judges are not required to justify their decisions in terms of laws- I don't think that's the case though.

Edited January 11, 2013 by blaze

[rubl]

Wouldn't you expect that the questions raised are of interest to ALL Thais? When the court entrusted to interpret the constitution can't even agree on which articles of the constitution can be ammended- shouldn't that be a bit of concern to everyone? Especially those who proclaim this court as a vital part of the system of checks and balances.

Normally wouldn't we expect a constitutional court to base all decisions on interpretations of the constitution and to clearly justify those decisions in terms of the constitution? If not, why call it a constitutional court? Why not just call it 'some old guys with opinions'.

But perhaps in Thailand judges are not required to justify their decisions in terms of laws- I don't think that's the case though.

"can't even agree on which articles of the constitution can be ammended" ?

This needs an explanation. The court agreed a referendum is needed to rewrite the constitution or articles could be 'modified' one by one. At least that's my understanding

[blaze]

Halfway down the page. Now this was said by Thida- perhaps she is wrong.

(I can't use cut and paste for some reason so you will have to scroll through the article to the paragraph beginning with "Thida said..")

Again the mere fact that Thida said it does not make it true- however it should not be too hard to either verify or disprove.

The main thing is that justice must not only be done but seen to be done- as the old saw goes- and for a court to say- we don't have to explain nuttin' to nobody'.-- wow.

Edited January 11, 2013 by blaze

[chrisrazz]

Why the need for a constitutional court? Is it in the constitution that a special court is required to interpret the lack of a clear and reasonable constitution! If the people for whose benefit the constitution exists, are unable to understand it, then it's not worth having it. Just remember who drafted the current version, those masters of obfustication - bureaucrats, constitutional lawyers and academics under the watchful eye of the generals with a take it or you won't get another one offer attached.

[rubl]

From wiki:

"The Constitutional Court of Thailand (Thai: ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ; RTGS: San Ratthathammanun; Thai pronunciation: [sǎːn•rat•tʰà•tʰam•má•nuːn]) is an independent Thai court originally established under the 1997 Constitution with jurisdiction over the constitutionality of parliamentary acts, royal decrees, draft legislation, as well as the appointment and removal of public officials and issues regarding political parties. The Court, along with the Constitution of Thailand, was dissolved in 2006 following the Thai military's overthrow of the government. While the Constitutional Court had 15 members, 7 from the judiciary and 8 appointed by the Senate, the Constitution Tribunal had 9 members, all from the judiciary.[1] A similar institution was established under the 2007 Constitution. The court is part of the judicial branch of the Government.

The 1998 establishment of the Constitutional Court provoked much public debate, both regarding the Court's jurisdiction and composition as well as the initial selection of justices. A long-standing issue has been the degree of control exerted by the judiciary over the Court.

The various versions of the Court have made several significant rulings. These included the 1999 ruling that Deputy Minister of Agriculture Newin Chidchop could retain his Cabinet seat after being sentenced to imprisonment for defamation, the 2001 acquittal of Thaksin Shinawatra for filing an incomplete statement, regarding his wealth, with the National Counter-Corruption Commission, the 2003 invalidation of Jaruvan Maintaka appointment as Auditor-General, and the 2007 dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai political party."

http://en.wikipedia....nal_of_Thailand

[muttley]

The Constitution Court is in no way obliged to provide clarifications on its ruling on charter amendment, court president Wasan Soypisudh said yesterday.

The questions are:

_ Is this ruling legally binding, and if so, which Articles of the Constitution is the ruling based upon, or is it just a suggestion?

_ Did the court issue a ruling against the third reading in Parliament, and if so, which Articles of the Constitution was this ruling based upon?

Thida said these answers were needed because different judges offered conflicting opinions. For instance, Constitution Court judge Chalermpol Ek-uru indicated that almost every Article in the charter could be amended with the exception of Article 291 (1) paragraph 2, while judge Nurak Mapraneet said the 2007 Constitution did not allow any amendments.

According to Thida, of the five Constitution Court judges, one said a public referendum should be held after the charter-amendment draft is completed, while four judges said the decision rested with the legislative branch and the judicial branch could not interfere.

And that is why this constution needs amending and the CC given one boot up its collective. What is the point of a Constitutional Court if

a) it exceeds its remit by interfering in the political area by making judgements on laws thus creating new ones and

it then refuses to or cannot explain these rulings on the one area it should be expert on and have one voice on - the Constitution.

Are these not reasonable questions to be asked?

Somebody please explain this to me without mentioning Thaksin or the Red Shirts. If it makes you feel happy pretend that it was the yellow shirts that asked these questions.

[muttley]

My question would be "Who's asking?" Some self-appointed (or appointed from afar) head of an organisation with no charter, stated aims, membership list or statement of accounts.

Well, why does that not suprise me. How dare you plebs question the courts?