Jump to content

Court Rejects Plea To Disband Thai Democrats


webfact

Recommended Posts

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.

nationlogo.jpg
-- The Nation 2013-04-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

Edited by siampolee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 489

      White Culture

    2. 189

      The Republican Freak Show

    3. 67

      Liquid limits at airport security...

    4. 4

      Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Israel's Growing Concern

    5. 364

      Harris Lies, Americans Die. Illegal Aliens are more Important

    6. 2,404

      Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II

    7. 0

      Horrific Bus Fire in Thailand Sparks National Debate on Safety

    8. 21
    9. 21

      Tim Walz's Verbal Missteps Stir Concerns Amid Tight Campaign

    10. 8

      Met Police Officers Reinstated After Appeal Over Bianca Williams Stop and Search Incident

    11. 8

      Met Police Officers Reinstated After Appeal Over Bianca Williams Stop and Search Incident

    12. 2

      harris sidesteps question on whether Bibi is a good US ally

    13. 2

      harris sidesteps question on whether Bibi is a good US ally

    14. 43

      Which state that Trump won in 2020 will he lose this time?

×
×
  • Create New...