Air con experts

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION REVIEW
Charter court accepts two complaints against amendment
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT yesterday agreed to consider two joint complaints lodged by an appointed senator and a Democrat Party MP against Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont and Senate Speaker Nikom Waiyaratpanit, and 310 ruling Pheu Thai Party and government-friendly lawmakers for approving a constitutional amendment on the qualifications of future Senate candidates.

The court, however, refrained from issuing an injunction to prevent the third reading of the bill. The judges in a 5-2 vote said they agreed with the plaintiffs that Somsak, Nikom and the 310 parliamentarians had been instrumental in pushing through and passing the amendment in two previous readings through unconstitutional means, outside those allowed in the charter's Article 68 Paragraph 1.

The five judges did not give a reason as to why they did not an issue an injunction on the third reading set for tomorrow.

The amendment stipulates that a future 150-member senate must be entirely elected. Currently, 75 senators are appointed under the post-coup Constitution. The amendment also allows relatives, children and spouses of elected senators, who are friendly to ruling Pheu Thai Party, to run in future Senate elections.

Retired Army general and appointed Senator Somjed Boontanom and Democrat MP Wirat Kallayasiri, the joint plaintiffs, are against this amendment because they deem it favourable to the Pheu Thai Party.

The two judges who cast minority votes explained their decisions: Chat Chollaworn said only the attorney general was authorised to make such an accusation in the complaints, and Udomsak Nitimontree said he did not deem Somsak's and Nikom's actions in the two previous readings as unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court needs to rule on the complaints before October 20 - a 20-day time frame when an amendment is passed - after the third reading scheduled for tomorrow, followed by voting on Saturday.

Three Democrat Party MPs yesterday submitted a complaint about a number of MPs belonging to an unidentified party, who registered for fellow party members using their ID cards, on two occasions during the second reading of the amendment. On the first occasion, on September 10, the qualifications of future senator candidates were debated, and it was voted on September 11.

Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, one of the three Democrats, said such an act was in violation of the Constitution's Articles 122, 125 and 137, and might have resulted in all the deliberations and voting on the amendment becoming invalid. He also submitted video clips and photos taken from media as evidence along with the complaint.


-- The Nation 2013-09-26

[Tatsujin]

The five judges did not give a reason as to why they did not an issue an injunction on the third reading set for tomorrow.

. . . except their bank accounts have increased substantially and the overseas world tour arranged for them next year (arranged so they can see how "judging" is done in other countries) will be adding Acapulco and Bali to the stop offs.

[bigbamboo]

Meanwhile the country continues to slowly disappear under water..........

[robertson468]

If part of the mechanism is the possibility of an injunction being issued, I am a little surprised why the journalists have not raised this with the Court to discover the rationale behind this and publicise it, so that the electorate knows what the Court is doing on their behalf. Um-m-m-m-m is this what one might call an open democracy?

[hammered]

Chat clearly doesn't believe "and" is the same as "or"...