Constitutional Court seems only option for Thai amnesty bill opponents

[webfact]

ANALYSIS
Constitutional Court seems only option for bill opponents
Somroutai Sapsomboon
Jintana Panyaarvudh
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The speedy passage of the controversial amnesty bills by the House of Representatives early yesterday shows one thing: The ruling Pheu Thai party never thinks of retreating when it comes to helping fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra. They are prepared to do or facilitate everything to whitewash his alleged crimes.

Some signs of retreat during the debate on the bill on Thursday proved to be just a trick to mislead the public into believing in such a possibility if there was tension because of the resistance.

Political observers believe the ruling party wants the bill to become effective within this Parliament session, which will end on November 28.

The House voted 310:0 to pass the amnesty bill at 4.20am yesterday after 19 hours of heated debate, which saw opposition MPs walk out. The debate took place even as groups of protesters demonstrated in an all-night vigil organised by the Democrats.

What would happen now? Will the bill be smoothly passed to become effective? Is there any way to stop the bill from becoming a law at this stage?

Apart from some of the street protests against the bill, some legal aspects will play a decisive role in deciding the fate of the blanket amnesty bill. Before becoming a law, the bill needs to be passed by the Senate. The upper House is set to deliberate the bill in its first reading at the earliest on November 8 or 11. Normally, it would take about three months to pass the bill by this process.

The bill could be delayed by the Senate for up to six months.

n Article 147 (2) of the Constitution states that if the Senate disagrees with the House, such bill shall be withheld and returned to the House.

n Article 147 (3) states that if there is an amendment from the Senate and the House disapproves such an amendment, a joint committee will be set up for considering the bill. After the joint committee's deliberation if either House disapproves it, the bill shall be withheld.

n Article 148 states that a bill withheld under section 147 may be reconsidered by the House only after a lapse of 180 days as from the date the bill is returned to the House by the Senate in case of withholding under section 147 (2) and as from the date either House disapproves it in case of withholding under section 147 (3).

Some anti-government senators have called on the Senate to vote against the bill in order to block it for at least six months. However, judging from the previous Senate's votes on important bills, they have generally voted in favour of the government.

Another way to block the bill would be to approach the Constitution Court.

The Democrat Party's legal expert, Wirat Kanlayasiri, said his party would file a petition in the court to block the legislation under Article 154. The article allows members of both Houses to submit the bill for a judicial review before the prime minister submits it for royal endorsement

The petition will make a case before the court that this controversial bill is significantly aimed at benefiting fugitive former PM Thaksin, he said.

Thai history shows that political rallies have rarely succeeded in changing a government or its policy unless the military steps in.

So, to block this controversial bill, the judiciary will be final hope.


-- The Nation 2013-11-02

[Tatsujin]

Thai history shows that political rallies have rarely succeeded in changing a government or its policy unless the military steps in.

History tells us a lot . . . if people would only look/learn. Bring on the next coup.

[fareastguy]

Just as an open question:

Has the "monarchy" ever refused to endorse a bill submitted by any government.. believing it not to be in the best interests of the "Kingdom"