Pheu Thai MPs to seek impeachment of Constitution Court judges
The Nation

Judges abused authority by agreeing to review charter-change bill, they say

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai MPs yesterday threatened to file criminal charges against Constitutional Court judges and seek their impeachment over what they regard as the court's interference in the legislative branch's power.

Samart Kaewmeechai, a Pheu Thai MP from Chiang Rai, said the legal team of Pheu Thai was gathering evidence for filing charges against the judges related to their decision to review the charter-amendment bill.

Constitutional Court judges voted 3:2 to accept a petition of Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn to consider whether the proposed amendment to Article 68 of the Constitution would be unconstitutional.

MPs and senators announced Thursday that they would not accept the Constitutional Court's role in considering Somchai's petition as they believed the court had no power over the affairs of the legislative branch.

Samart said the judges should be charged with abusing their authority for accepting Somchai's petition.

He said MPs and senators would also sign their names to initiate an impeachment process against the Constitutional Court judges. The motion would then be sent to the Senate speaker.

Samart added that since MPs and senators had decided to send a formal statement to the Constitutional Court rejecting their authority, they would not have to submit a written explanation to the court within 15 days, as demanded by the court.

He said the parliamentarians decided to seek impeachment of the Constitutional Court judges to preserve the principle of independence between the three branches of power - the executive, the legislative and judicial branches.

Court 'violated power'

Pheu Thai MP Pichit Chuenban, a legal expert of the party, said the Constitutional Court violated the power of the legislative branch by accepting Somchai's petition for a judicial review.

Pichit added that Article 291 of the Constitution allowed Parliament to amend some articles of the charter and that the planned amendment to Article 68 would not deprive the people of their rights as charged.

However, a lecturer of law pointed out yesterday that the statement planned by MPs and senators had no legal status and would therefore have no effect on the Constitutional Court.

Kittisak Pokkati, a lecturer of law from Thammasat University, said the Constitutional Court's decisions did in fact have legal binding on all organisations, including Parliament.

He said if MPs and senators refused to accept the Constitutional Court's authority, they must instead file a lawsuit against the Constitutional Court judges with a court of justice, to consider whether the judges had abused their authority or not.

The lecturer said if MPs and senators refused to send explanations to the Constitutional Court, the court could proceed with the review without the explanations.

Pimol Thampithakpong, a spokesman of the Constitutional Court, said the law requires those persons who have had complaints lodged against them to submit their defence statements to the court within 15 days, or else the court would assume they did not want to defend themselves.

Parliament President Somsak Kiartsuranont yesterday declined to comment on the MPs and senators' plans to send a statement to the Constitutional.

"I don't want to comment on the issue. It needs to be considered by the legal affairs committee of Parliament first," Somsak said.

Appointed senator, Somjet Boonthanom also filed a petition with the Constitutional Court yesterday against the Article 68-amendment, asking the court to issue an injunction to suspend it.

In another development, the Democrat Party yesterday threatened to seek an impeachment against Somsak for allowing a retroactive 15-day vetting of three charter amendment bills from April 4, even though Parliament only decided the timeframe on Thursday. The three bills were passed in the first reading on April 3.


-- The Nation 2013-04-20

All in the name of reconciliation?

Are PTP actually doing anything besides fighting the legal system and borrowing money?

Not long ago Pheu Thai gave out the address and phone number of a constitutional court judge at a party rally,more recently their master threatened to set "his people"on the constitutional court judges,and now they want to criminalise them,The constitution is supposed to protect the people from the ignorance or arrogance of governments who in times of upheaval may deny the people their rights(regardless how small their minority)Pheu Thai arent the glue that will unite the country they are the acid that will disolve it.If they get their way woe betide the nation.

Yes, damn those judges for doing their jobs and reigning in this bunch of criminally inept fools. Go get them PT, the last thing Thailand needs is someone trying to ensure good governance.

Mr. T is giving the orders..... And his puppets follow blindly.

Yes, damn those judges for doing their jobs and reigning in this bunch of criminally inept fools. Go get them PT, the last thing Thailand needs is someone trying to ensure good governance.

I would call this very dangerous territory - it's not a surprise as they seem to think they are above the law and if they are not they will try and change the law through this charter constitution bill to make it so

it cannot be allowed to continue

Imagine if PTP get there way in all of this even GK will be complaining about the police state and the Mutt will be chaseing the red shirt patrols in his neighborhood

This is a reflection of how desperate the scoundrel in Dubai is getting - and how much sway he still has over his money-sucking minions at PT.

Imagine if PTP get there way in all of this even GK will be complaining about the police state and the Mutt will be chaseing the red shirt patrols in his neighborhood

If we're talking about the police state, imposed by the limp-wrested, white-gloved traffic police, perhaps it won't be as dire.

it's a pity the ccc can't enforce a 2/3 majority requirement in the house - that would shore up Democracy in Thailand bringing it in line with most other similar democracies throughout the world

and thwart the efforts of one single party trying to dominate in the house, after all the democrats did get 1/3 of the vote, as it stands that 1/3 of the Thai public get no say in such issues, all the dems can do is object without having any real part in the process

Something Thailand needs to look at going forward then none of this nonsense would be going on, at least the dems put it to the people to vote when they wanted changes - PT are avoiding that because they know they would lose

Time for change - I hope the CCC rules that in the interests of the voting public that a 2/3 majority is required on any charter or constitutional changes - that would be more representative of the voting public and quite reasonable

it's a pity the ccc can't enforce a 2/3 majority requirement in the house - that would shore up Democracy in Thailand bringing it in line with most other similar democracies throughout the world

and thwart the efforts of one single party trying to dominate in the house, after all the democrats did get 1/3 of the vote, as it stands that 1/3 of the Thai public get no say in such issues, all the dems can do is object without having any real part in the process

Something Thailand needs to look at going forward then none of this nonsense would be going on, at least the dems put it to the people to vote when they wanted changes - PT are avoiding that because they know they would lose

Time for change - I hope the CCC rules that in the interests of the voting public that a 2/3 majority is required on any charter or constitutional changes - that would be more representative of the voting public and quite reasonable

This super majority issue want omitted by accident. What if the dems wanted to change something?

it's a pity the ccc can't enforce a 2/3 majority requirement in the house - that would shore up Democracy in Thailand bringing it in line with most other similar democracies throughout the world

and thwart the efforts of one single party trying to dominate in the house, after all the democrats did get 1/3 of the vote, as it stands that 1/3 of the Thai public get no say in such issues, all the dems can do is object without having any real part in the process

Something Thailand needs to look at going forward then none of this nonsense would be going on, at least the dems put it to the people to vote when they wanted changes - PT are avoiding that because they know they would lose

Time for change - I hope the CCC rules that in the interests of the voting public that a 2/3 majority is required on any charter or constitutional changes - that would be more representative of the voting public and quite reasonable

This super majority issue want omitted by accident. What if the dems wanted to change something?

they did and they put it to the people

I don't understand your reply - it seems fair to me and if the Dems wanted to change something same rules apply

If this existed in Thailand right now none of the current political unrest would exist because they would know it would never get a vote in the house or by the people - I ask you what is wrong with that

If parties want to propose sensible changes then they might get passed if it is in the interests of the Thai people as a whole and not just one man or one small power hungry group of bought thugs - it would certaintly take the silliness off the table and put this country on a firm political footing representing all the people, as it is it just creates division and keeps the pot boiling with hate and indifference - the 2/3 majority would decrease the divide not increase it - as for now the Dems and their 1/3 voting public are left out in the cold and have to resort to other methods to be heard

it's a pity the ccc can't enforce a 2/3 majority requirement in the house - that would shore up Democracy in Thailand bringing it in line with most other similar democracies throughout the world

and thwart the efforts of one single party trying to dominate in the house, after all the democrats did get 1/3 of the vote, as it stands that 1/3 of the Thai public get no say in such issues, all the dems can do is object without having any real part in the process

Something Thailand needs to look at going forward then none of this nonsense would be going on, at least the dems put it to the people to vote when they wanted changes - PT are avoiding that because they know they would lose

Time for change - I hope the CCC rules that in the interests of the voting public that a 2/3 majority is required on any charter or constitutional changes - that would be more representative of the voting public and quite reasonable

When did they do this? and what did they put to the people?

Goh, took only 13 replies to get to "but ... but ... the democrats".

Anyway, our skyping criminal fugitive has given orders and as all know orders from the master need to be followed and executed or else one might loose an allowance, a job or worse ... get send down South

Goh, took only 13 replies to get to "but ... but ... the democrats".

Anyway, our skyping criminal fugitive has given orders and as all know orders from the master need to be followed and executed or else one might loose an allowance, a job or worse ... get send down South

Ah diddums, i am sure you can select one of the other 10,000 topics of PTP/Red shirt hating threads if you dont like anyone to talk about the opposition. Given how irrelevant the opposition have become, i suppose it makes a nice change for some people to talk about them, incidentally the Democrats were raised in this thread by a Yellow Shirt/Army/Dem sympathizer.

I couldn't care less who raises the off topic stuff. The topic here is Pheu Thai MP's to seek Impeachment of the Constitutional Court. As ordered by their lord and master the skyping criminal fugitive in Dubai. That's the topic.

Goh, took only 13 replies to get to "but ... but ... the democrats".

Anyway, our skyping criminal fugitive has given orders and as all know orders from the master need to be followed and executed or else one might loose an allowance, a job or worse ... get send down South

Ah diddums, i am sure you can select one of the other 10,000 topics of PTP/Red shirt hating threads if you dont like anyone to talk about the opposition. Given how irrelevant the opposition have become, i suppose it makes a nice change for some people to talk about them, incidentally the Democrats were raised in this thread by a Yellow Shirt/Army/Dem sympathizer.

if that reference is to me you are wrong

I see things as right and wrong and at the moment there are many things wrong in Thai politics - that is what I post about - it's my opinion and I offer explanation to my opinion and also ideas in my opinion that may fix the problem - it's called a discussion

Goh, took only 13 replies to get to "but ... but ... the democrats".

Anyway, our skyping criminal fugitive has given orders and as all know orders from the master need to be followed and executed or else one might loose an allowance, a job or worse ... get send down South

Ah diddums, i am sure you can select one of the other 10,000 topics of PTP/Red shirt hating threads if you dont like anyone to talk about the opposition. Given how irrelevant the opposition have become, i suppose it makes a nice change for some people to talk about them, incidentally the Democrats were raised in this thread by a Yellow Shirt/Army/Dem sympathizer.

if that reference is to me you are wrong

I see things as right and wrong and at the moment there are many things wrong in Thai politics - that is what I post about - it's my opinion and I offer explanation to my opinion and also ideas in my opinion that may fix the problem - it's called a discussion

Yeah fantastic but can you answer my simple question to you. You stated the Dems put it to the people to vote on. I asked what they put to the people and when. Any chance of an answer?

Goh, took only 13 replies to get to "but ... but ... the democrats".

Anyway, our skyping criminal fugitive has given orders and as all know orders from the master need to be followed and executed or else one might loose an allowance, a job or worse ... get send down South

Ah diddums, i am sure you can select one of the other 10,000 topics of PTP/Red shirt hating threads if you dont like anyone to talk about the opposition. Given how irrelevant the opposition have become, i suppose it makes a nice change for some people to talk about them, incidentally the Democrats were raised in this thread by a Yellow Shirt/Army/Dem sympathizer.

if that reference is to me you are wrong

I see things as right and wrong and at the moment there are many things wrong in Thai politics - that is what I post about - it's my opinion and I offer explanation to my opinion and also ideas in my opinion that may fix the problem - it's called a discussion

Yeah fantastic but can you answer my simple question to you. You stated the Dems put it to the people to vote on. I asked what they put to the people and when. Any chance of an answer?

go look it up - I'm not your goffer - better things to do with my time

it's a pity the ccc can't enforce a 2/3 majority requirement in the house - that would shore up Democracy in Thailand bringing it in line with most other similar democracies throughout the world

and thwart the efforts of one single party trying to dominate in the house, after all the democrats did get 1/3 of the vote, as it stands that 1/3 of the Thai public get no say in such issues, all the dems can do is object without having any real part in the process

Something Thailand needs to look at going forward then none of this nonsense would be going on, at least the dems put it to the people to vote when they wanted changes - PT are avoiding that because they know they would lose

Time for change - I hope the CCC rules that in the interests of the voting public that a 2/3 majority is required on any charter or constitutional changes - that would be more representative of the voting public and quite reasonable

This super majority issue want omitted by accident. What if the dems wanted to change something?

they did and they put it to the people

I don't understand your reply - it seems fair to me and if the Dems wanted to change something same rules apply

If this existed in Thailand right now none of the current political unrest would exist because they would know it would never get a vote in the house or by the people - I ask you what is wrong with that

If parties want to propose sensible changes then they might get passed if it is in the interests of the Thai people as a whole and not just one man or one small power hungry group of bought thugs - it would certaintly take the silliness off the table and put this country on a firm political footing representing all the people, as it is it just creates division and keeps the pot boiling with hate and indifference - the 2/3 majority would decrease the divide not increase it - as for now the Dems and their 1/3 voting public are left out in the cold and have to resort to other methods to be heard

Of course it should be the case that super majority is used. But you see, the constitution was written under the junta and the plan was that ptp would be long squashed by now, and abhisit would be planning to pass the reigns onto korn.

But they just won't lie down and learn their place.

If the Shinawatra Mafia Dynasty can't change it legally they are going to ride right over it. Yay for above the Law Thaksin and his democracy Dynasty. And people wonder why the Army has to clean up the mess.

So, a duly elected government, with a parliamentary majority seeks to reorganise some part of an inept and badly designed judicial system.

Where is the problem ??

If the Shinawatra Mafia Dynasty can't change it legally they are going to ride right over it. Yay for above the Law Thaksin and his democracy Dynasty. And people wonder why the Army has to clean up the mess.

But you see, there HAS TO be the possibility that an elected government changes the constitution, irrespective of which side they are on.

There is a balance required in the Thai system, a situation whereby an independant body can make judgements to protect its ability to continue to do so is not an ideal situation

I'm done here I've said my bit take it or leave it I could care less

unsubscribed

There is a balance required in the Thai system, a situation whereby an independant body can make judgements to protect its ability to continue to do so is not an ideal situation

That is a rather confused/confusing statement. Do you believe the system should NOT allow independent bodies to defend themselves from attack? Should they be vulnerable to a malignant assault from a body subject to constant change to the political whim of the day, and which would then destroy their independence?

Imagine if PTP get there way in all of this even GK will be complaining about the police state and the Mutt will be chaseing the red shirt patrols in his neighborhood

I wouldn't bet on it.

Where does the PTP get off thinking they can impeach the constitutional court for doing it's job.

Does the constitutional court not realize this is Thaksin Shinawarta they are thwarting?

So, some see no problem in the Pheu Thai party (i.e. not the government in this particular case) in seeking impeachment of the constitutional Court because their boss, the owner of the Pheu Thai party has told them to do so. The owner who just happens to be a criminal fugitive who stands to earn most from a diminishing of checks and balances who already disliked those when he was a 'we can rule for twenty years' PM and indicated that "democracy is not my goal".

Having said all that in itself there is no problem with a political party or an ex-senator to ask a court to investigate certain situations. Just like the Democrats asking the Const. Court to look into charter amendment, the Pheu Thai can ask the Criminal Court to look into the Const. Court alleged illegal interference. At the very least we will get answers on what the courts deem constitutional and legal and within bounds. That should clear up the sky and make it easier to rule in future cases

There is a balance required in the Thai system, a situation whereby an independant body can make judgements to protect its ability to continue to do so is not an ideal situation

That is a rather confused/confusing statement. Do you believe the system should NOT allow independent bodies to defend themselves from attack? Should they be vulnerable to a malignant assault from a body subject to constant change to the political whim of the day, and which would then destroy their independence?

No wonder you are confused Mick, what you fail to acknowledge is the one way system in operation....