New attack on court's power to amend charter
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Government MPs and Senators have staged a political blow at the Constitutional Court in refusing to accept it has the power to decide on whether to halt an amendment to Provision 68 of the charter, reasoning that Parliament has legitimacy to amend the provision.

Government whip chairman Amnuay Klangpa led a group of 20 government MPs and Senators to call a press conference to explain about the 10-page open letter issued by 312 parliamentarians featuring their intention not to bow to the Constitutional Court's authority.

The Pheu Thai Party had earlier resolved to boycott the Constitutional Court by refusing to present their court testimonies after the court accepted to rule on a petition involving an amendment of Provision 68 of the Constitution.

Provision 68 of the constitution allows the public to complain directly to the court in relation to acts that could undermine the constitutional monarchy or grab power through unconstitutional means.


-- The Nation 2013-05-02

Ignore the courts at your peril

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

They are trying to provoke a coup. This is a direct attack on the main man!

The Pheu Thai MPs who ignore summons seem to forget that with parliament in recess they are no longer safe under "parliamentary immunity". If police could be found brave enough to enforce summons the MPs couldn't just say they are "politically victimized" as their ignoring a court summons because of a ploy by a criminal fugitive seems somewhat politically victimising a court already.

BTW we moved from Pheu Thai MPs to Government MPs and Senators it seems. That's indeed a bold move which directly challenges the checks and balances which the government thinker never really liked anyway.

This Thai Charter is starting to look like the second edition of "War and Peace" , the former coming shortly.

The Pheu Thai MPs who ignore summons seem to forget that with parliament in recess they are no longer safe under "parliamentary immunity". If police could be found brave enough to enforce summons the MPs couldn't just say they are "politically victimized" as their ignoring a court summons because of a ploy by a criminal fugitive seems somewhat politically victimising a court already.

BTW we moved from Pheu Thai MPs to Government MPs and Senators it seems. That's indeed a bold move which directly challenges the checks and balances which the government thinker never really liked anyway.

What summons are you on about?

^#9 muttley

The part "The Pheu Thai Party had earlier resolved to boycott the Constitutional Court by refusing to present their court testimonies" has this mere suggestion that those MPs were 'asked' to pretty please with sugar provide some information. It would seem none of the MPs has received the request, at least not officially and no-one seems to be able to find them to hand over the kind request. Maybe the Constitutional Court will raise a case of 'contempt of court' with the Criminal Court.

Trolling nonsense posts have been removed.

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

No I don't but then I think the LM laws should be abolished anyway. They don't seem to be used for the purpose for which they were created and I can't see the need for them in Thailand.

Of course it's a different matter with other issues.

Actually Tom, Dick and Harry sound like farangs so they aren't allowed to petition the court as far as I know. According to some on here they aren't allowed to express an opinion either.

Why would they even try to go against the Normal person being able to petition the courts?

Seems to me they are only trying to make it harder for the average individual to do anything.

Me personally, I believe the whole current government is corrupt to the core and only care about being a monopoly and doing as they please. They could care less about the average Thai citizen. But this is only my Opinion...Take this and 200 Baht and you can get a cup of coffee, maybe..

Then again I think all Thai governments or all governments are only in the positions for themselves including my country USA>

Don't slam me as this is a forum and I am only posting my thoughts....

UPDATE
POLITICS
Lawmakers vow to reject court ruling on article 68
Chanikarn Phumhiran,
Olan Lertrudtanadumrongkul
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Government MPs and senators set the stage for confrontation with the Constitutional Court by refusing to accept that it has the power to decide whether to halt an amendment to Article 68 of the charter, reasoning that Parliament has the authority to amend the provision.

Government whip chairman Amnuay Klangpa led a group of 20 government MPs and senators to call a press conference to explain about the 10-page open letter signed by 312 parliamentarians expressing their intention not to bow to the Constitutional Court's authority.

The Pheu Thai Party had earlier resolved to boycott the Constitutional Court by refusing to give their testimonies before the court.

Article 68 of the Constitution allows the public to complain directly to the court regarding acts that could undermine the constitutional monarchy or grab power through unconstitutional means.

The amendment would require complaints to be made first through the Office of the Attorney-General, a move viewed by a petitioner as depriving the public of its right to raise issues in the court.

The open letter would be distributed to all independent agencies, educational institutes and judges except the Constitutional Court.

Pheu Thai Yasothorn MP Peerapan Palusuk said that if the Constitutional Court insisted on ruling on Article 68, its verdict would not be legally binding.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard filed a petition with the Constitutional Court, asking it to review its decision to disqualify Pheu Thai Party MP Jatuporn Promphan.

The court ruled last year that Jatuporn had lost his MP status because he was under detention, causing him to also lose his membership of the Pheu Thai Party as per the Political Party Act.

Appointed Senator Paiboon Nititawan, former senator Jermsak Pinthong and Komsan Pokong, meanwhile, filed a petition with the Constitutional Court. They accused former premier Thaksin Shinawatra of violating Article 68 of the Constitution by assuming power to run the country without legitimacy and accused 238 Pheu Thai Party MPs of violating Article 122 by carrying out their duties under Thaksin's control.

They submitted evidence, which included 12 video clips, two interviews and 17 media reports that showed Thaksin instructing the Pheu Thai Party to amend the charter, and pass amnesty bills and reconciliation bills, including legislation for the Bt2-trillion loan bill.

The group requested the court to issue an order that Thaksin stop carrying out all activities regarded as illegally acquiring power to run the country.

They also called on the court to declare the on-going charter amendment null and void because the move was carried out under Thaksin's thumb.


-- The Nation 2013-05-03

This could work out well for the courts. They can charge the 312 with contempt of court, and then rule that the parliament can debate the changes. Deals with the politicians and the protesters.

I would think if elected parliament wishes to overthrow a court that would be failure in fiduciary responsibility and contravention of mandate and the courts should issue summonses to remove these people from their elected and appointed roles of representing and governing the county. Poste Haste.

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

That is not in question.

Article 68 has nothing to do with lese majeste.

".....accused 238 Pheu Thai Party MPs of violating Article 122 by carrying out their duties under Thaksin's control."

Spot on target. Abusing your MP position by selling your vote (and your country down the drain) to a fugitive criminal is a serious offence. Jail the bloody lot of them.

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

That is not in question.

Article 68 has nothing to do with lese majeste.

The ammendment to 68, is to make petitions of lese majeste have to pass through the Attorney Generals office, as I understand. I don't think they are proposing to change the head of state?????

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

That is not in question.

Article 68 has nothing to do with lese majeste.

The ammendment to 68, is to make petitions of lese majeste have to pass through the Attorney Generals office, as I understand. I don't think they are proposing to change the head of state?????

Yet.

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

That is not in question.

Article 68 has nothing to do with lese majeste.

The ammendment to 68, is to make petitions of lese majeste have to pass through the Attorney Generals office, as I understand. I don't think they are proposing to change the head of state?????

Yet.

Well, unfortunately, this isn't Minority Report. Courts can't rule on the fact that the sky may fall on one's head.

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

That is not in question.

Article 68 has nothing to do with lese majeste.

The ammendment to 68, is to make petitions of lese majeste have to pass through the Attorney Generals office, as I understand. I don't think they are proposing to change the head of state?????

As said, lese majeste is not a part of Article 68.

Accusations of violating lese majeste are conducted through a complaint filed with the police and not the Constitutional Court.

Contents of Article 68 (and the entire constitution) are available here:

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/

Well, in all honest, does anyone really think that allowing every single Tom Dick and Harry to petition for lese majeste is a good idea?

That is not in question.

Article 68 has nothing to do with lese majeste.

Lese majeste is Article 112 of the Penal Code. Article 68 of the Constitution deals with those who plan to overthrow the system of democratic government under constitutional monarchy with the King as head of state. The Constitutional Court has the power to order the dissolution of a political party it deems to be in violation. What PT wants to amend is para 2 which states:

"In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under

paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request

the Attorney General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the

Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however,

prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person".

The wording is slightly ambiguous on the Attorney General's role. Since it doesn't clearly state that the Attorney General is the only avenue through which a petition may be submitted to the court and the Attorney General is a political appointment of the government and an office that is traditionally considered rife with corruption, the court interpreted this to mean that petitions can also be submitted directly to the court as well as through the AG. PT now wishes the wording to be amended to say that the AG is the only route through which a petition may be submitted, thereby ensuring that whoever controls the government also controls what petitions may be submitted to the Constitutional Court, thereby rendering it another lame duck.

I would think if elected parliament wishes to overthrow a court that would be failure in fiduciary responsibility and contravention of mandate and the courts should issue summonses to remove these people from their elected and appointed roles of representing and governing the county. Poste Haste.

I think Parliament has precendence over the courts rather than the other way round, in the sense that, ultimately, Parliament can bring anything into law.

This whole thing is just really bizarre.

I would think if elected parliament wishes to overthrow a court that would be failure in fiduciary responsibility and contravention of mandate and the courts should issue summonses to remove these people from their elected and appointed roles of representing and governing the county. Poste Haste.

I think Parliament has precendence over the courts rather than the other way round, in the sense that, ultimately, Parliament can bring anything into law.

That is the principle of separation of powers i.e keep the bastards honest

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard filed a
petition with the Constitutional Court, asking it to review its decision
to disqualify Pheu Thai Party MP Jatuporn Promphan.

This is the same attitude that Thaksin has toward any court: We'll use it for our own purposes but we won't accept any findings that might or does go against us.

Of course, we'll try the lunch box method & if that doesn't work we'll release the wolves.

The CC would now be within its rights to go ahead and release its findings on article 68 without the input from Thaksin's sheep. A constitutional crisis could lead to any one of four outcomes.

1. Anarchy

2. PTP or parliament being dissolved.

3. Civil war

4 A coup

2 would be the best outcome but the red shirt factor hovers over all the outcomes giving various levels of violence.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard filed a

petition with the Constitutional Court, asking it to review its decision

to disqualify Pheu Thai Party MP Jatuporn Promphan.

This is the same attitude that Thaksin has toward any court: We'll use it for our own purposes but we won't accept any findings that might or does go against us.

Of course, we'll try the lunch box method & if that doesn't work we'll release the wolves.

The CC would now be within its rights to go ahead and release its findings on article 68 without the input from Thaksin's sheep. A constitutional crisis could lead to any one of four outcomes.

1. Anarchy

2. PTP or parliament being dissolved.

3. Civil war

4 A coup

2 would be the best outcome but the red shirt factor hovers over all the outcomes giving various levels of violence.

The implied threat of red shirt violence was why PTP was not disbanded after the last general election due to their use of a banned politician in their advertising campaign and the putting forward of improper persons as party list candidates, IMHO. The question is, how long should the threatened violence be allowed to affect the decisions of independent bodies, and to what extent should their powers be eroded before the threat is met? Is Thailand to be a democracy or an anarchy where political parties are allowed to field a private militia to over-ride the democratic checks and balances?

The group requested the court to issue an order that Thaksin stop

carrying out all activities regarded as illegally acquiring power to run

the country.

They also called on the court to declare the on-going charter amendment

null and void because the move was carried out under Thaksin's thumb.

-- The Nation 2013-05-03