Court defers action on Article 68 amendment, awaits more details
Chanikarn Phumhiran
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court yesterday postponed the judicial review of four petitions against the Article 68 amendment, pending the filing of written explanations by the Parliament president and Senate speaker.

Constitutional Court judges decided to wait for Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont and Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatphanich to submit their written defence to the court for the petition filed by Warin Thiamcharas before the court would start the review.

Warin's petition was among four petitions submitted to the court, asking it to consider whether the on-going process to amend Article 68 was deemed an attempt to topple the constitutional government or not.

[The amendment to Article 68 of the Constitution would prevent individuals from directly petitioning the high court. They would instead need to go through the attorney general.]

The court has combined the four petitions into one review process.

Another petition was filed by Somjet Boothanom. The court yesterday allowed two complainants, senators Jittipoj Wiriyaroj and Thaweesak Kidbanjong, to submit their written defence in Somjet's petition by June 13 after the two told the court they were served with the petition on May 20.

Two more petitions against the Article 68 amendment have been filed by the People's Alliance for Democracy and the Democrat Party. The court has yet to consider whether to accept the two latest petitions for review or not.

Also yesterday, the Constitutional Court decided to reject a petition by former senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, seeking the court's ruling to disband the Democrat Party.

Ruangkrai alleged that the Democrats violated Article 68 by joining the vetting process of the bill to amend Article 68 - so the Democrats should be deemed seeking to overthrow the constitutional government and should be disbanded. The court decided the Democrats had not acted or done anything deemed as violations of Article 68 so far.

Meanwhile, a small group of red shirts, the Pro-Democracy People's Radio group, held a demonstration against the Constitutional Court in front of the court yesterday.

The group set up a stage, which turns its back at the court as a symbol that it rejects the court's authority. One company of crowd control policemen was deployed to keep security.

Sornrak Malaithong, the spokesman of the group, said his group demanded the Constitutional Court reject all the petitions against the charter amendments.

He said if the court makes a ruling that affects the country's administration, his group would call on the people to demand the Constitutional Court judges resign.

Sornrak said his group had also filed a lawsuit with the Criminal Court, alleging that the Constitutional Court judges had abused their authority by accepting the petitions.


-- The Nation 2013-05-30

Warin's petition was among four petitions submitted to the court, asking it to consider whether the on-going process to amend Article 68 was deemed an attempt to topple the constitutional government or not.

[The amendment to Article 68 of the Constitution would prevent individuals from directly petitioning the high court. They would instead need to go through the attorney general.]

I still don't see how this can be tied together as an issue. Petitioning a court and changing the system of government. How does one cause the other.

Does any one think the red shirt protestors know what they are really protesting against?

Does any one think the red shirt protestors know what they are really protesting against?

White masks I think

Meanwhile, a small group of red shirts, the Pro-Democracy People's Radio group, held a demonstration against the Constitutional Court in front of the court yesterday.

The group set up a stage, which turns its back at the court as a symbol that it rejects the court's authority. One company of crowd control policemen was deployed to keep security.

Sornrak Malaithong, the spokesman of the group, said his group demanded the Constitutional Court reject all the petitions against the charter amendments.

He said if the court makes a ruling that affects the country's administration, his group would call on the people to demand the Constitutional Court judges resign.

Sornrak said his group had also filed a lawsuit with the Criminal Court, alleging that the Constitutional Court judges had abused their authority by accepting the petitions.

Déjà vu all over again...

No mention of the magical 6 figure... Yet...