Court Rejects Plea To Disband Thai Democrats

[webfact]

CHARTER-AMENDMENT BILL
Court rejects plea to disband Democrats
Chanikarn Phumhirun,
Atapoom Ongkulna
The Nation

Judiciary accepts petition against House speaker on violating rights

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court yesterday unanimously agreed to reject the petition filed by former senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana to disband the Democrat Party for its alleged involvement in vetting charter-amendment bills.

The court ruled that the Democrats did not violate the Constitution's Article 68 as alleged and, hence, Ruangkrai's request that the court issue an injunction had to be dismissed.

On Tuesday, Ruangkrai filed a petition calling on the court to disband the Democrat Party because the 11 Democrats who were involved in vetting the charter-change bill were also part of the ad-hoc committee considering the bills in the second reading.

As per Article 68, the Constitutional Court has the right to dissolve any political party that is seen trying to topple the constitutional monarchy or gaining power to rule the country in an unconstitutional manner.

The court also voted 5:3 to accept the petition filed by Borworn Yasinthorn to rule on whether House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and 312 lawmakers had violated Article 68 by depriving people of their right to block amendments to the charter.

Somsak has called a House-Senate joint meeting for next Thursday to resolve the dispute on how many days should be spent scrutinising the charter-amendment bills.

He said the meeting would not spend very long debating the timeframe issue, and would simply vote on the matter. "If the meeting approves 60 days, we will go with that. Parliamentary regulations clearly stipulate that we take 15 days unless the meeting votes otherwise,'' he said.

This move comes after the opposition threatened to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on the timetable issue and to file an impeachment motion against Somsak.

Somsak denied having made a legal blunder, adding that parliamentary regulation No 96 stipulates that once an ad-hoc committee is established, it will spend 15 days on deliberations. He added that he adjourned last Wednesday's parliamentary session because it lacked a quorum, and he has decided to call a meeting next Thursday to let Parliament make a decision on the dispute.

"As for the claim that I fear being removed through impeachment proceedings, I never said I wouldn't call a House-Senate meeting [to resolve the dispute]. I always call on people to make compromises,'' he said.

Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva backed the plan for the meting. The current parliamentary session, which is reserved for legislation, is scheduled to go into recess next Saturday.


-- The Nation 2013-04-12

[waza]

Amazing thailand

[Locationthailand]

What a complete waste of time, resources and energy. The former senator should be fined for his interference and wasting the courts time.

[siampolee]

In the U.K. the esteemed ( in his own mind) ex senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana would be labeled as ''A vexatious litigant.'' Thus his antics would not even occupy one minute of the courts time.

[Chrisswe]

Why should they , they are there's cronys !

[rubl]

I'm surprised the worthy ex-senator didn't file a similar pwtition on the Pheu Thai party which also has MPs vetting the charter amendment bills and are part of the ad-hoc committee. At least then the court could have thrown out both at the same time.

Some of the ex-senators petitions might be worthwhile in that they may lead to clarifications of the law, but some of his petitions seem a bit frivolous

[Baerboxer]

Why should they , they are there's cronys !

Don't be dumb. The court explained why the ex-senator's petition was rejected. This is the job of a court - to judge in accordance with the laws.

That's why all tinpot dictators need to control, gag, threaten and intimidate courts and the judiciary. Didn't read that Abhisit or the Democrats were threatening in any way, unlike some others.

[ZhouZhou]

Why should they , they are there's cronys !

Don't be dumb. The court explained why the ex-senator's petition was rejected. This is the job of a court - to judge in accordance with the laws.

That's why all tinpot dictators need to control, gag, threaten and intimidate courts and the judiciary. Didn't read that Abhisit or the Democrats were threatening in any way, unlike some others.

tinpot and other kind of dictators usually reign with the judiciary. control, gag, threaten and intimidate any opposition.

you should do some studies how dictatorships worked in the history.