Democrats Back Public Right To Petition Court

[Lite Beer]

CHARTER AMENDMENT
Democrats back public right to petition court
The Nation on Sunday

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut

BANGKOK: -- Opposition vows to block changes to Article 68

The Democrat Party will strongly oppose the government's move to amend Article 68 of the Constitution because the proposal would deprive the public of the right to file charter-related complaints directly to the Constitution Court, the opposition party's Phattalung MP Narit Khamnurak said yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Pheu Thai Party's deputy spokesman said the ruling party would inform the government whips of its decision that during Parliament's deliberation on the charter amendment from tomorrow to Wednesday, senators should be allocated eight hours of debate, government MPs 15 hours and the opposition 11 hours.

In regard to the government's proposal to amend Article 237 by abolishing party dissolution as a punishment in cases where executive members commit electoral offences, the Democrats will need to see what other punishments could be used instead, Narit said. The party may support punishment of individual party executives who commit electoral offences, and scrapping political bans for entire executive boards, the MP added.

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut said that while the opposition believes amending the Constitution article by article could be done, it feared the government may seek to amend Article 68 of the Constitution to pave the way for a wholesale rewrite.

Meanwhile, Assumption University lecturer Pornsan Liangbunlertchai said that to prevent political conflicts, the government should have Foreign Ministry officials take part in the amendment of article 50 and 190 since they involve the country's sovereignty.

He said other points relating to charter amendment that could bring about political conflict include how senators are elected; the bid to abolish party dissolution as a punishment; and reducing the power of the Constitution Court. "These are important mechanisms that the conservative group have established in the ruling system to check the power of politicians," he said.

He personally approved of the government's move to amend Article 68 to let public prosecutors screen complaints before they are forwarded to the Constitution Court.

"If the Constitution Court does not have a check or screening system, the public one day may question its ruling. If society does not respect the court's decision, the country will not be able to move forward," he said.

Former House speaker Bhokin Palakula voiced concern that political complications could arise if the Constitution Court agrees to make a ruling on a complaint filed by a group of 40 senators questioning the constitutionality of the move to amend Article 68. He said Parliament has a duty to legislate and amend the law. "We cannot use the court verdict [as] a law," he said.

-- The Nation 2013-03-31

[notmyself]

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut said that while the opposition believes amending the Constitution article by article could be done, it feared the government may seek to amend Article 68 of the Constitution to pave the way for a wholesale rewrite.

Demand '68' be the last one.

[hellodolly]

You just can't help but wonder how much of their BS the public buys.

"

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut said that while the
opposition believes amending the Constitution article by article could
be done, it feared the government may seek to amend Article 68 of the
Constitution to pave the way for a wholesale rewrite."

That is what they were instructed to do by Thaksin. No surprise there.


"Meanwhile, Assumption University lecturer Pornsan Liangbunlertchai said
that to prevent political conflicts, the government should have Foreign
Ministry officials take part in the amendment of article 50 and 190
since they involve the country's sovereignty."

Yes bring in all the PT members in the Foreign Ministry to help prevent a conflict. Don't invite any opposition in to try to solve the problem.

Another typical academic statement. No thought just look at my title and agree.

[muttley]

Article 68 - The original way to petition the Constitution Court was to do so through the Attorney General - see here

In May 2006, the Constitution Court rejected a petition by a former MP submitted under the same section in the previous constitution on the basis that Section 63 (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text) did not allow the complainant to directly submit the petition to the Constitution Court. The Court then ruled that the petition must first be considered by the Attorney General. The rejected petition in 2006 was filed to request the Court to disband the Democrat Party.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/

The Constitution Court has obviously since changed its mind so that it could hear the ridiculously friviolous charge put forward by the Dems and the PAD that the PTP was overthrowing the democratic regime of Thailand by wanting to amend the constitution. The Constitution Court then ruled on the meanings of "and" and "or" with respect to the Attorney General getting involved.

The dems litigious mindset is precisely the reason why you shouldn't be able to approach the Constitution Court without the AG being the filter. And before you all start going on about political appointments and politically biased AG's this AG is the same one who was appointed by Abhisit.

Does anyone honestly believe the Dems when they say they are doing this for Somchai in the street? Like the Constitution Court are going to take any notice of what Somchai thinks about article 68.

[whybother]

Article 68 - The original way to petition the Constitution Court was to do so through the Attorney General - see here

In May 2006, the Constitution Court rejected a petition by a former MP submitted under the same section in the previous constitution on the basis that Section 63 (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text) did not allow the complainant to directly submit the petition to the Constitution Court. The Court then ruled that the petition must first be considered by the Attorney General. The rejected petition in 2006 was filed to request the Court to disband the Democrat Party.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/

The Constitution Court has obviously since changed its mind so that it could hear the ridiculously friviolous charge put forward by the Dems and the PAD that the PTP was overthrowing the democratic regime of Thailand by wanting to amend the constitution. The Constitution Court then ruled on the meanings of "and" and "or" with respect to the Attorney General getting involved.

The dems litigious mindset is precisely the reason why you shouldn't be able to approach the Constitution Court without the AG being the filter. And before you all start going on about political appointments and politically biased AG's this AG is the same one who was appointed by Abhisit.

Does anyone honestly believe the Dems when they say they are doing this for Somchai in the street? Like the Constitution Court are going to take any notice of what Somchai thinks about article 68.

Regardless of political party, it is ridiculous to have a politically appointed person as the filter to determine what can get through to the courts.

[khunken]

Article 68 - The original way to petition the Constitution Court was to do so through the Attorney General - see here

In May 2006, the Constitution Court rejected a petition by a former MP submitted under the same section in the previous constitution on the basis that Section 63 (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text) did not allow the complainant to directly submit the petition to the Constitution Court. The Court then ruled that the petition must first be considered by the Attorney General. The rejected petition in 2006 was filed to request the Court to disband the Democrat Party.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/

The Constitution Court has obviously since changed its mind so that it could hear the ridiculously friviolous charge put forward by the Dems and the PAD that the PTP was overthrowing the democratic regime of Thailand by wanting to amend the constitution. The Constitution Court then ruled on the meanings of "and" and "or" with respect to the Attorney General getting involved.

The dems litigious mindset is precisely the reason why you shouldn't be able to approach the Constitution Court without the AG being the filter. And before you all start going on about political appointments and politically biased AG's this AG is the same one who was appointed by Abhisit.

Does anyone honestly believe the Dems when they say they are doing this for Somchai in the street? Like the Constitution Court are going to take any notice of what Somchai thinks about article 68.

Regardless of political party, it is ridiculous to have a politically appointed person as the filter to determine what can get through to the courts.

Yes - we have seen how a political appointment - Tarit - can remain 'independent'. The question is not just who appoints an official to a supposed non-political post, but who controls that individual.

It should also be remembered that Thaksin (who is really behind all this), through some of his minions, has really wanted to make the CC totally toothless - not just amend section 68.

This is all about a reduction in the weak checks & balances, just similar to that which Thaksin set about when he was in power. 'We won the election, so we can do as we please' style of 'democracy'.

[Arkady]

Pheua Thai claims cancelling the right of citizens to petition the Constitutional Court directly will ease the court's burden as petitions will then have to go through the attorney-general who will filter the cases. What a wonderful democratic innovation to channel citizens complaints through the notoriously corrupt and political office of the attorney-general. How many of these petitions have there been? Being a little bit obvious aren't we?

Edited April 1, 2013 by Arkady

[rubl]

Too busy (or maybe too lazy) to check, but how does a CC stand in 2006 reflect to the article 68 in the 2007 constitution?

BTW the restriction on the public's rights will surely get all democracy loving supporters (including the UDD of course) to rally against this blatant move to restrict ones democratic rights.

[muttley]

Pheua Thai claims cancelling the right of citizens to petition the Constitutional Court directly will ease the court's burden as petitions will then have to go through the attorney-general who will filter the cases. What a wonderful democratic innovation to channel citizens complaints through the notoriously corrupt and political office of the attorney-general. How many of these petitions have there been? Being a little bit obvious aren't we?

I'm sorry was this Attorney General notoriously corrupt and political when Abhisit appointed him?

I know he's made some bad choices in the past with Suthep and Kasit to name but two, but I haven't seen any evidence of your accusation in the forum during Abhisits time - or do they only go bad when it's the PTP in government?

[muttley]

Too busy (or maybe too lazy) to check, but how does a CC stand in 2006 reflect to the article 68 in the 2007 constitution?

BTW the restriction on the public's rights will surely get all democracy loving supporters (including the UDD of course) to rally against this blatant move to restrict ones democratic rights.

You're too lazy to even read my post properly - all the info is there - but because you're a lazy and you're trying to sow doubt (as usual with no facts to back it up) I'll point it out for you

on the basis that Section 63 (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text)

Not only that, but the Constitution Courts own website says that the way to make a complaint under Article 68 is through the AG, though no doubt they may have got round to changing it like they change their mind.

Edited April 1, 2013 by muttley

[rubl]

Constitution 1997 section Section 61 A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time, as provided by law.

Constitution 2007 section 67 paragraph 3 The right of a community to sue a government agency, State agency, State enterprise, local government organisation or other State authority which is a juristic person to perform the duties under this section shall be protected.

Now without reading all of the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, in both we have hidden in section 28
"A person whose rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution are violated can invoke the provisions of this Constitution to bring a lawsuit or to defend himself in the Courts."

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that a few sections combined would provide leeway to multiple interpretations. Maybe it would be a good idea to clarify those sections to explicitly describe the right to directly address the Constitutional Court with petitions and maybe even stronger complaints

[Mudcrab]

Article 68 - The original way to petition the Constitution Court was to do so through the Attorney General - see here

In May 2006, the Constitution Court rejected a petition by a former MP submitted under the same section in the previous constitution on the basis that Section 63 (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text) did not allow the complainant to directly submit the petition to the Constitution Court. The Court then ruled that the petition must first be considered by the Attorney General. The rejected petition in 2006 was filed to request the Court to disband the Democrat Party.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/

The Constitution Court has obviously since changed its mind so that it could hear the ridiculously friviolous charge put forward by the Dems and the PAD that the PTP was overthrowing the democratic regime of Thailand by wanting to amend the constitution. The Constitution Court then ruled on the meanings of "and" and "or" with respect to the Attorney General getting involved.

The dems litigious mindset is precisely the reason why you shouldn't be able to approach the Constitution Court without the AG being the filter. And before you all start going on about political appointments and politically biased AG's this AG is the same one who was appointed by Abhisit.

Does anyone honestly believe the Dems when they say they are doing this for Somchai in the street? Like the Constitution Court are going to take any notice of what Somchai thinks about article 68.

Regardless of political party, it is ridiculous to have a politically appointed person as the filter to determine what can get through to the courts.

There is always politics involved no matter what the appointment....worldwide.