Constitution Court slammed after admitting 2008 rulings "careless"

BANGKOK, 18 March 2013 (NNT) - The Constitution Court has faced harsh criticism from Puea Thai party, Chat Thai Pattana party, and some senators, after the Constitution Court president admitted that the rulings to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and to dissolve political parties were, in his word, "careless".

Constitution Court President Wasan Soipisuth said, in a seminar organized by the court, that the court procedures that led to the ruling in 2008 to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej relied too much on individual judges' personal opinions, and failed to clearly establish what the facts were before making a decision on the legality of the acts of persons involved.

Mr Wasan also said that the ruling to dissolve the Palang Prachachon and Chart Thai Pattana parties was "necessary in order to avoid political chaos".

Mr Wasan's remark was heavily criticised by Chart Thai Pattana party's spokesman Watchara Kannikar, who accused the Constitution Court of basing its verdict on its own disputable opinion that the Chart Thai Pattana party was a potential cause of "political chaos".

Puea Thai party's deputy spokesman Jirayut Huangsap asked that the Constitution Court judges be summoned to House Committee on Judicial Affairs to explain what happened before the ruling.

Meanwhile, Senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana asked the Constitution Court to show responsibility for its mistake, and suggested that if all the Constitution Court judges agree with Mr Wasan that the ruling did not follow proper procedures, the court should rectify its erroneous verdict.


-- NNT 2013-03-18

Someone got to him...

Someone got to him...

Mr. Conscience? Or, perhaps sober reflection. It is not unusual for judges to reconsider their positions.

You may forget, but there were a number of legal scholars that did question the process and the motives.

A court has to rule upon facts established in the court and not on the presumption that not providing a certain verdict would result in political chaos.

Rather than cast aspersions at the gentleman, I think he should instead be lauded for his willingness to reconsider a very significant issue. A judge that is open to the consideration of a possible misinterpretation is far more credible than one who keeps on denying an error in law.

And the rulings about Mr T's "unusual wealth"? They were "careful"?

There was a period not so long ago when the courts had gumption - that has pretty well disappeared with the Puea Thai bunch back in office - back because same old Thai Rak Thai, same leader, same intimidation. The courts seem terrified of that lad in Dubai.

Here we go again.

Was it the ruling of the court or the Army or the Democrats....

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

Actually it is the court's willingness to bow to political winds that is at the root of Thailand's current political problems. Back in 2000 or so, when PM-elect Thaksin was found to have concealed his assets (remember when is maid & gardener we among Thailand's richest people??) the court found him "not guilty". Years later, one of the judges admitted that it was obvious that he was guilty, but he had just won a landslide election and they felt that they should not go against the will if the people.

Thus, the court's willingness to compromise, rather then strictly follow the rule of law, has lead to more than a decade of strife and turmoil.

Someone got to him...

Mr. Conscience? Or, perhaps sober reflection. It is not unusual for judges to reconsider their positions.

You may forget, but there were a number of legal scholars that did question the process and the motives.

A court has to rule upon facts established in the court and not on the presumption that not providing a certain verdict would result in political chaos.

Rather than cast aspersions at the gentleman, I think he should instead be lauded for his willingness to reconsider a very significant issue. A judge that is open to the consideration of a possible misinterpretation is far more credible than one who keeps on denying an error in law.

I remember two judges reconsidering their verdicts after Thaksin's appeal in his assets concealment case.

And I also remember why.

Someone got to him...

Both times - today and in 2008

Edited March 18, 201313 yr by avalonmick

Another shining example of applying double standards by the Thai justice system. That the Constitution Court President admitted that they were wrong, is hopefully a sign of a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel.

Edited March 18, 201313 yr by hanuman2543

It is clear that the Thai courts are rotten to the bone. By not following the law the judges have became defacto dictators and by admitting this they should be dragged away in handcuffs and be locked up for the next 20 years. It comes as no surprise though after we have seen other high ranking judges on the take on Youtube.

Someone got to him...

Mr. Conscience? Or, perhaps sober reflection. It is not unusual for judges to reconsider their positions.

You may forget, but there were a number of legal scholars that did question the process and the motives.

A court has to rule upon facts established in the court and not on the presumption that not providing a certain verdict would result in political chaos.

Rather than cast aspersions at the gentleman, I think he should instead be lauded for his willingness to reconsider a very significant issue. A judge that is open to the consideration of a possible misinterpretation is far more credible than one who keeps on denying an error in law.

I remember two judges reconsidering their verdicts after Thaksin's appeal in his assets concealment case.

And I also remember why.

And will the PTP revisit that case also or was that just an "honest mistake"?

Me thinks the judiciary of Thailand is no higher than the government or it's departments , ankle high.

Me thinks the judiciary of Thailand is no higher than the government or it's departments , ankle high.

Nostrils high in many cases, with little doubt.

Since reconsidering your decisions/verdicts is akin to losing face, for admitting being wrong,

It is a rather rare thing, regardless of ageing nurses opinions on the subject,

and typically happens only in cases of severe influence by someone above them being imposed,

or large piles of cash and favors being applied or both. Otherwise it is virtually unkown.

Edited March 18, 201313 yr by animatic

Brilliant situation. A commentator, or member of the public can break the law by criticising the decision, and now the judges do it themselves. Can the judges who made the decision, sue the judge making this statement.

There was a period not so long ago when the courts had gumption - that has pretty well disappeared with the Puea Thai bunch back in office - back because same old Thai Rak Thai, same leader, same intimidation. The courts seem terrified of that lad in Dubai.

All of this will help their case in support of Mr. T

For once I agree with Geriatrickid. The judge should be commended for admitting the court got part of the decision wrong.

As already mentioned, some individual judges admitted getting Thaksin's assets scrutiny verdict wrong too.

So, yes, PTP are hypocrites (not unusually) is demanding 'explanations' for the Samak case but not the Thaksin case.

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

You are definitely a farang,an ignorant one.The baht is not going to weaken,it didn't last time.The UK and USA are the countries that are stuffed and they wouldn't be corrupt would they?The new world is in Asia,better get used to it.

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

You are definitely a farang,an ignorant one.The baht is not going to weaken,it didn't last time.The UK and USA are the countries that are stuffed and they wouldn't be corrupt would they?The new world is in Asia,better get used to it.

Everything is relative over time. The baht is simply going back to where it was valued before.

Will it collapse? Don't think so. Might it devalue a bit? Possible.

However, believing that the west will stay in this economic mess for a long time and that Asia will inherit the world is very fanciful.

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

You are definitely a farang,an ignorant one.The baht is not going to weaken,it didn't last time.The UK and USA are the countries that are stuffed and they wouldn't be corrupt would they?The new world is in Asia,better get used to it.

Everything is relative over time. The baht is simply going back to where it was valued before.

Will it collapse? Don't think so. Might it devalue a bit? Possible.

However, believing that the west will stay in this economic mess for a long time and that Asia will inherit the world is very fanciful.

Broadly agree with you. If you mean where it was before 1997 and the property construction boom continues unabated, we could headed for another 1997. Not in 2013 but within the next few years.

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

You are definitely a farang,an ignorant one.The baht is not going to weaken,it didn't last time.The UK and USA are the countries that are stuffed and they wouldn't be corrupt would they?The new world is in Asia,better get used to it.

Everything is relative over time. The baht is simply going back to where it was valued before.

Will it collapse? Don't think so. Might it devalue a bit? Possible.

However, believing that the west will stay in this economic mess for a long time and that Asia will inherit the world is very fanciful.

Broadly agree with you. If you mean where it was before 1997 and the property construction boom continues unabated, we could headed for another 1997. Not in 2013 but within the next few years.

However, what is the source of the funding for the capital?

Domestic, or international? Constructors may go bust, but will it cause a currency run? I don't think so. That is the difference to 97.

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

An irresponsible post methinks.

Here we go again.

--------

And, if we are lucky, a much weaker Baht .... and better exchange rates for the GBP and USD against the Baht.

That is MY only concern about any Thai politics .... how the political situation affects currency exchange rates.

ALL Thai politicians are incompatent lieing crooks anyhow.

Burn down a few more malls in Bangkok ... it won't bother me a bit.

You are definitely a farang,an ignorant one.The baht is not going to weaken,it didn't last time.The UK and USA are the countries that are stuffed and they wouldn't be corrupt would they?The new world is in Asia,better get used to it.

Everything is relative over time. The baht is simply going back to where it was valued before.

Will it collapse? Don't think so. Might it devalue a bit? Possible.

However, believing that the west will stay in this economic mess for a long time and that Asia will inherit the world is very fanciful.

Broadly agree with you. If you mean where it was before 1997 and the property construction boom continues unabated, we could headed for another 1997. Not in 2013 but within the next few years.

However, what is the source of the funding for the capital?

Domestic, or international? Constructors may go bust, but will it cause a currency run? I don't think so. That is the difference to 97.

The source of funds for construction is probably domestic which IMO was much the same in 1997. The only difference there is that it is banks this time & not finance houses, whose bad loans triggered the crisis. Yes, there was international borrowing which certainly contributed to the currency speculation & the crisis.

I still wouldn't rule out a construction bubble in the medium-term future & we know what happens when it bursts.

I thought judges were supposed to rull on law not potential political outcomes. It would help if they established the rule of law and some of this BS might be averted. I dare to think what would happen to protestors in the US if they created a riot and tried to take over the white house or capital. Then again the protestors know that in the US and they refrain from making such a mistake. Law rules the day, it provides stability and organization to society, so society can flourish. Even the much hated Mr. T should not have been convicted, but that is a different argument.

Someone got to him...

Mr. Conscience? Or, perhaps sober reflection. It is not unusual for judges to reconsider their positions.

You may forget, but there were a number of legal scholars that did question the process and the motives.

A court has to rule upon facts established in the court and not on the presumption that not providing a certain verdict would result in political chaos.

Rather than cast aspersions at the gentleman, I think he should instead be lauded for his willingness to reconsider a very significant issue. A judge that is open to the consideration of a possible misinterpretation is far more credible than one who keeps on denying an error in law.

He is right. Some one got to him. These guys don't have consciences. Discrediting the Constitutional Court would be a huge political advantage to PT when it goes for re-organising the constitution to eliminate the Constitutional Court and the independent agencies. He may have been promised an even better job.

I'm puzzled about any issues with Samak's case. This was a position where he told at least three different versions of the events, which where I come from is called perjury. The court seemed to take the view that the offence and the actions of the defendant compounded the matter thereby creating a position where it no longer possible for him to serve as PM Those seemed to be the core issues [he was also appealing a defamation conviction, which was one hearing away from completion, if he'd lost that appeal he would have been ineligible to be PM IIRC] and that is what cost him the premiership, not so much "a cooking show:.

For the moment, this is the personal opinion of Wasan Soipisuth and not a ruling of the Constitution Court. The rulings of the Constitution Court are final and cannot be revised, not even by a single (and new) judge of this court.

I don't know the background of Wasan Soipisuth, but considering that for us "normals" criticizing the verdict of a court may be considered as contempt of court and punished, he must feel pretty sure to offer his "dissenting" opinion. Who backed him?

Edited March 18, 201313 yr by dominique355

Following the case against Samak daily in the press, it seemed to me that he should have been charged with perjury for lying under oath about ever receiving substantial monetary payments - as evidence from an apparently unexpected (by Samak anyway) witness subsequently revealed. As to why the Court didn't do so, perhaps a lawyer may be able to provide an explaination.

In any case, with his bilious propaganda, Samak was clearly in breach of the spirit of the law, and his arrogance towards the judges made it a pretty easy call for them and justice was done, if not seen to be done.

Bottom Line: He'd had it coming for a long time.

(I only wish he could have been sentenced to shooting by soldiers from a helicoper gunship - of that, he would have been TRULY deserving.)

Edited March 18, 201313 yr by GazR