House Speaker: Court has no right to block Thai charter-amendment

[webfact]

POLITICS
Tensions rise before ruling
POLITICAL DESK
THE NATION

Speaker: Court has no right to block amendment

BANGKOK: -- AN ALL-OUT offensive against the Constitutional Court was launched by its opponents yesterday, ahead of today's scheduled ruling on the charter-amendment bill in regard to the selection of senators.

Parliament President and House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont, along with two deputy speakers, yesterday denounced the judicial intervention in the charter-amendment bill related to the Senate, regardless of the outcome.

"After consulting with Parliament's legal team, I find that the Constitutional Court is not empowered to launch a review on charter change," he said.

Security was stepped up to guard the court compound in northern Bangkok, with around 2,000 police officers being deployed to ensure peace and keep order in the face of two large crowds supporting and opposing the charter court.

A team of 20 policemen took up sentry duty to screen out unauthorised individuals, while roadblocks and barriers were set up to shield the court building.

The Constitutional Court earlier accepted a petition from opposition party MPs and some senators to review whether amendment of Article 68 of the charter breached the Consti-tution. The amendment has been endorsed by Parliament and forwarded by the prime minister to His Majesty the King for final approval.

Somsak said the legislature had duly dispensed its duty to amend the charter as per Article 291 of the Constitution. Moreover, there is no constitutional provision sanctioning judicial intervention in charter amendment deemed necessary by the legislature, he insisted.

"I still believe the Constitutional Court will rule to enhance democratic rule under the King as head of state," he said, voicing optimism that the judicial review will not strike down the bill. He said his comments should not be construed as trying to sway the outcome of the judicial decision. Echoing Somsak's comments, the legal team - led by Somchart Thammasiri - outlined its three reasons for objecting to what it sees as judicial meddling in legislative affairs.

First, the Constitution does not empower the Constitutional Court to review charter change.

Second, the legislature has the sole power to amend the charter.

Third, the legislative process to amend the charter in regard to the Senate was completed on September 28.

Despite the anti- and pro-government protests, the nine judges of the Constitutional Court appeared to be remaining calm in carrying out their duty in forming a judgement.

"Judges with work experience of more than 30 to 40 years will not be distracted by sentiment, pressure, criticism or commendation," a court official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said judicial independence was essential to the prevailing rule of law and that in the face of mounting pressure, it might be high time to shield that independence by empowering the Constitutional Court to cite contempt for unruly behaviour heaped on the judges.

Meanwhile a legal expert yesterday warned that the Court has no authority to decide on the charter-amendment bill, as it was now a matter of royal prerogative.

"Be careful, you may be violating the royal prerogative and violating the lese majeste law. You have no power to rule on the matter, as the premier has already submitted the matter to His Majesty the King," Ukrit Mongkolnavin, former president of the Parliament and chairman of the government-appointed independent National Rule of Law Commission, said during a seminar on "The Role of the Constitution Court in the Survival of the Country", held by Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law.

In a separate press conference, 312 MPs and senators - led by the Pheu Thai Party's Lop Buri MP and government chief whip Amnuay Khlangpha and Kamphaeng Phet Senator Krich Attikaew - spoke out in force against the court's pending ruling.

"We will neither obey nor comply with the court's ruling. Should the worst-case scenario occur, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would not take responsibility for royal endorsement," Amnuay said.

Krich said the MPs and senators would seek impeachment of the nine justices if the court ruled in favour of the opposition's petition. Amnuay denied, however, that the 312 parliamentarians had the intention of pressuring the court, and said they merely wanted to make the public aware of their stance.

Yingluck, meanwhile, yesterday pleaded for the public to be calm while awaiting the ruling. She admitted she had some concern, but did not want the public to panic. The PM said she believed the court would decide based on information and principle, and would act with all due caution.

Meanwhile, Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said he was taken aback to learn that the ruling Pheu Thai Party would not accept the judicial decision on the charter-amendment bill.

"I'm stunned because if we do not respect the authority of law enforcement of each administrative branch, it's hard to see how the country can function," he said in an interview broadcast by the Democrat-affiliated Blue Sky satellite-TV station.

A source from Government House said the government believed the court was likely to dismiss the case, as the charter amendment was not intended to topple the current system.


-- The Nation 2013-11-20

[soundman]

Hard to have confidence in a government that only respects the law when it is favourable to their position.

[NongKhaiKid]

It doesn't matter who or what it is there's no right to do anything that the government, PTP and reds don't like.

The rule of law here is very simple, it's their way or not at all.

[Emptyset]

It doesn't matter who or what it is there's no right to do anything that the government, PTP and reds don't like.

The rule of law here is very simple, it's their way or not at all.

But what about legal experts who claim the court has no right to rule on this case? Will you accept, having examined the constitutional aspects of this closely yourself, that it's very difficult to see how there's a case against the government here? If after careful examination of the facts at hand, you still think PT should be dissolved and MPs banned in a wholly politicized decision, at least that's honest.

[NongKhaiKid]

It doesn't matter who or what it is there's no right to do anything that the government, PTP and reds don't like.

The rule of law here is very simple, it's their way or not at all.

But what about legal experts who claim the court has no right to rule on this case? Will you accept, having examined the constitutional aspects of this closely yourself, that it's very difficult to see how there's a case against the government here? If after careful examination of the facts at hand, you still think PT should be dissolved and MPs banned in a wholly politicized decision, at least that's honest.

Why should anyone study anything closely, follow what's written down etc. when the law is made up as things go along ?

[Emptyset]

It doesn't matter who or what it is there's no right to do anything that the government, PTP and reds don't like.

The rule of law here is very simple, it's their way or not at all.

But what about legal experts who claim the court has no right to rule on this case? Will you accept, having examined the constitutional aspects of this closely yourself, that it's very difficult to see how there's a case against the government here? If after careful examination of the facts at hand, you still think PT should be dissolved and MPs banned in a wholly politicized decision, at least that's honest.

Why should anyone study anything closely, follow what's written down etc. when the law is made up as things go along ?

So you think the court is making up the law as it goes along? I wouldn't go so far as to say that myself, but yeah, a lot of people are thinking along those lines right now.

[Thai at Heart]

It doesn't matter who or what it is there's no right to do anything that the government, PTP and reds don't like.

The rule of law here is very simple, it's their way or not at all.

The whole debate about whether the constitutional court could interpret this type of request took weeks.

It is by no means clear.

[Local Drunk]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

[Thai at Heart]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

There is a long piece about this on bangkokpundit.

In Thai it comes down to the interpretation of one word, and how it ties sentences together. I don't care either way but I think activism like this by the constitutional court was not what was written into the constitution.

Doesn't matter what I think because they are going to do it anyway.

[NongKhaiKid]

It doesn't matter who or what it is there's no right to do anything that the government, PTP and reds don't like.

The rule of law here is very simple, it's their way or not at all.

But what about legal experts who claim the court has no right to rule on this case? Will you accept, having examined the constitutional aspects of this closely yourself, that it's very difficult to see how there's a case against the government here? If after careful examination of the facts at hand, you still think PT should be dissolved and MPs banned in a wholly politicized decision, at least that's honest.

Why should anyone study anything closely, follow what's written down etc. when the law is made up as things go along ?

So you think the court is making up the law as it goes along? I wouldn't go so far as to say that myself, but yeah, a lot of people are thinking along those lines right now.

You are quite right about the court as i would like to think they know what they are doing and act within their charter. Unfortunately external forces from all sides can do the job better than them.

[Emptyset]

Why should anyone study anything closely, follow what's written down etc. when the law is made up as things go along ?

So you think the court is making up the law as it goes along? I wouldn't go so far as to say that myself, but yeah, a lot of people are thinking along those lines right now.

You are quite right about the court as i would like to think they know what they are doing and act within their charter. Unfortunately external forces from all sides can do the job better than them.

So you'd be satisfied if the court brought the government down even though there wasn't really a legal basis for the decision?

[NongKhaiKid]

Why should anyone study anything closely, follow what's written down etc. when the law is made up as things go along ?

So you think the court is making up the law as it goes along? I wouldn't go so far as to say that myself, but yeah, a lot of people are thinking along those lines right now.

You are quite right about the court as i would like to think they know what they are doing and act within their charter. Unfortunately external forces from all sides can do the job better than them.

So you'd be satisfied if the court brought the government down even though there wasn't really a legal basis for the decision?

I'm not Thai, it's their country and their mess so it does'nt matter what I would be satisfied with as I can't vote.

I don't want riot or anything approaching a civil war by any definition, do you ?

[Emptyset]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

[Thai at Heart]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

Well from an absolute perspective that is correct.

However, this is 500 shades of grey going on here, so if they can squish ptp, but stop a civil war and an uprising and then find a way to make abhisit a man of the people and avoid a coup, I will be a happy man.

The shinawatras have shown their colours completely and it has nothing to do with the good of Thailand. It's the lesser of two evils to get rid of them this way than to let it get as far as mass confrontation.

[Emptyset]

So you'd be satisfied if the court brought the government down even though there wasn't really a legal basis for the decision?

I'm not Thai, it's their country and their mess so it does'nt matter what I would be satisfied with as I can't vote.

I don't want riot or anything approaching a civil war by any definition, do you ?

Obviously not, but can't see how court could justify any ban. And if the move is seen as totally unjust, it's likely violence will follow from it. I tend to think both sides are beyond concerns regards rule of law at this point. But in 2008, at least the Constitutional Court had a case. As I said in a previous thread, anyone could see how they came to their conclusion in that case, despite subsequent admittal that the case was indeed affected by external politicals. Whereas this case, it seems no one can see how they'd reach a conclusion to ban PT MPs. Now I disagree with PT's decision to refuse court's decision before it's been made. I think that's a retarded move. But that doesn't mean the court would be right in banning PT MPs. Basically... it's all absurd and neither side has moral legitimacy but let's hope people are sensible here.

[Local Drunk]

Why should anyone study anything closely, follow what's written down etc. when the law is made up as things go along ?

So you think the court is making up the law as it goes along? I wouldn't go so far as to say that myself, but yeah, a lot of people are thinking along those lines right now.

You are quite right about the court as i would like to think they know what they are doing and act within their charter. Unfortunately external forces from all sides can do the job better than them.

So you'd be satisfied if the court brought the government down even though there wasn't really a legal basis for the decision?

"So you'd be satisfied if the court brought the government down even though there wasn't really a legal basis for the decision?"

Satisfied? If you mean that the legal basis for the court dissolving the govt or upholding the govt's amendment is based on how one interprets the word of law then perhaps I would be. I tend to side with judges rather than politicians on issues of legality. Either way I'd accept the outcome of their verdict.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Local Drunk

[Emptyset]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

Well from an absolute perspective that is correct.

However, this is 500 shades of grey going on here, so if they can squish ptp, but stop a civil war and an uprising and then find a way to make abhisit a man of the people and avoid a coup, I will be a happy man.

The shinawatras have shown their colours completely and it has nothing to do with the good of Thailand. It's the lesser of two evils to get rid of them this way than to let it get as far as mass confrontation.

Well, I'm in broad agreement here. Only if anyone becomes a 'man of the people' I sincerely hope it isn't Abhisit. I supported him in the 2007 election and really hoped he'd somehow win. Still had respect for him, despite everything, during early 2010. But after that, no. What I will say is that it'd really bother me if he were tried in a fair court for what happened in 2010 and Thaksin were free to get away from his culpability for the WOD and other human rights abuses. Honestly I'd hope never to hear of either of them again. Abhisit blew it completely in 2010 and there's no reason he should be given another chance, no more than Thaksin should.

Edit: should add I don't really think it'll result in less 'mass confrontation' if court gets rid of them this way. I think the best way forward would be patience on all sides.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Emptyset

[JRSoul]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

The section of the quote changed to bold makes it quite clear that the Cc has the authority to scrutinise the bill. IMHO section 68 applies because this appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the senate, allowing in persons closely associated to others with political affiliation in an attempt to make the senate a rubber stamp.

[Thai at Heart]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

Well from an absolute perspective that is correct.

However, this is 500 shades of grey going on here, so if they can squish ptp, but stop a civil war and an uprising and then find a way to make abhisit a man of the people and avoid a coup, I will be a happy man.

The shinawatras have shown their colours completely and it has nothing to do with the good of Thailand. It's the lesser of two evils to get rid of them this way than to let it get as far as mass confrontation.

Well, I'm in broad agreement here. Only if anyone becomes a 'man of the people' I sincerely hope it isn't Abhisit. I supported him in the 2007 election and really hoped he'd somehow win. Still had respect for him, despite everything, during early 2010. But after that, no. What I will say is that it'd really bother me if he were tried in a fair court for what happened in 2010 and Thaksin were free to get away from his culpability for the WOD and other human rights abuses. Honestly I'd hope never to hear of either of them again. Abhisit blew it completely in 2010 and there's no reason he should be given another chance, no more than Thaksin should.

Edit: should add I don't really think it'll result in less 'mass confrontation' if court gets rid of them this way. I think the best way forward would be patience on all sides.

Something will give. They won't let thaksin off the hook.

[Emptyset]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

The section of the quote changed to bold makes it quite clear that the Cc has the authority to scrutinise the bill. IMHO section 68 applies because this appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the senate, allowing in persons closely associated to others with political affiliation in an attempt to make the senate a rubber stamp.

So you think amendment to make senate fully elected would violate Section 68 which states: "no person shall....overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution".

Really?

[Thait Spot]

There are many options here available to the CC on a scale of zero to armagedon

It wouldn't surprise me if they red carded those who cheated in the vote (those who voted for "friends" and the "friends") and asked for a revote

It wouldn't surprise me to find that those who openly spoke about ignoring the CC were charged with contempt of court either

As for the legislation itself - we will see

[Local Drunk]

I've quite enjoyed this thread!

[JRSoul]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

The section of the quote changed to bold makes it quite clear that the Cc has the authority to scrutinise the bill. IMHO section 68 applies because this appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the senate, allowing in persons closely associated to others with political affiliation in an attempt to make the senate a rubber stamp.

So you think amendment to make senate fully elected would violate Section 68 which states: "no person shall....overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution".

Really?

If the senate had been changed to a political body, Thaksin would have his amnesty by now and all of the crimes of the man and his party washed away by their own hand. If you can't understand that is covered by "to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution" then what is?

[Local Drunk]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

The section of the quote changed to bold makes it quite clear that the Cc has the authority to scrutinise the bill. IMHO section 68 applies because this appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the senate, allowing in persons closely associated to others with political affiliation in an attempt to make the senate a rubber stamp.

So you think amendment to make senate fully elected would violate Section 68 which states: "no person shall....overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution".

Really?

Ask yourself this question. Why does the current government want a fully elected senate? I know that you know the history of this government and so does the court and some others who perhaps see something within the realms of "intent" regarding 68 and this amendment. It's not so much the issue of an elected senate in my opinion but rather the intent of a political party or person with a fully elected senate.

Cheers, LD

[robblok]

The red cheerleaders here don't seem to understand that in a corrupt country like Thailand checks and balances are vital. The Government has done all they can to remove them and put cronies in important places so they can control it all.

If they can control the senate too there is no end to the corruption and theft of the countries money. A impartial senate will also check future goverments. Its important that the checks and balances are restored in all of the bodies to undo what the reds have done. This is the only way to ensure a fair and as less corrupt a Thailand as possible.

I would not mind a red government that is in charge if there are independent bodies to check it, not like it is now. With independent bodies we would not have been in the mess we are now.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited November 20, 2013 by robblok

[rametindallas]

"I find that the Constitutional Court is not empowered to launch a review on charter change," he said

This 'elected' person holds himself in higher authority than the Constitutional Court? Ludicrous. Saying something doesn't make it so. Even the PM, who is a higher authority than this person can't override the courts. It's called 'balance of power'; otherwise you have dictatorship instead of democracy.

[rametindallas]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

It's the same with the United States Supreme Court. It cannot make law but there is no law that can be passed that it doesn't have the digression to review and allow or disallow.

[Thainy Tim]

It seems to me that, yes the Court does have the authority to rule on the amendment.

"The Constitutional Court has been established under the provisions of the new Constitution, Section 255 through Section 268. Under the provisions of Section 268, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organizations. This makes it clear that there is no appeal from the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and its rules are absolutely final. They must be adhered to by the National Assembly (which includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and on the Council of Ministers, which includes the ministers of each and every ministry established under Thai law, on the Courts, including all other Courts, and on other State organizations. The scope of the Constitutional Courts powers is very broad. Section 262 of the Constitution provides that any bill or law which is being considered or has been adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court decides on the legality of the act, and of all provisions of the act. The court has the power to decide whether the bill or law complies with or is in any way contrary to the Constitution, and has the power to declare the law void, or to declare any part of the law void and unenforceable.

The Constitutional Court also has power to review the application of any pertinent law involved in any case before any court. The Constitutional Court can invoke its jurisdiction either by reference by the court before which the case is pending, or by objection by any party involved in that lawsuit claiming that the provisions of the law are inconsistent with the Constitution. Upon such an objection, the court in which the case is pending must stay (delay) the action and refer it to the Constitutional Court."

Yeah, I believe the court has the authority to rule on cases that affect the constitution. But in this case, no one can tell me how government's amendment of the constitution - again, in this specific case - violates section 68. Nevertheless the judges accepted the petition. So let's see... seems many here just want the court to act regardless of whether it's according to the constitution or not. And that makes a mockery of any concern for the rule of law.

The amendments are totally and 100% in the jurisdiction of the constitutional court.

The constitution is set up so that true democracy can prevail.

The court is there to protect the constitution and everything within it from being manipulated by parliament. They are the highest court in the land and are there to see that parliament and the senate perform in a democratic way.

The senate appointing system is in place constitutionally to separate it from parliament and to act as a second layer of protection from abuse of power. The whole idea of a senate is that it can't be tampered with by any elected government, lest there is no point in a senate at all.

PTP clearly are abusing their power to force a change in the way the senate is set up, and everyone knows that the ONLY reason for that is to be able to own a majority there and totally control both houses making it a defunct system. Thus making the whole affair, unconstitutional.

The PTP are pissed off because they are up against the final layer of protection. The constitutional Court. Which they know they have ZERO power over, and they don't like not having power over something.

The Constitutional court is answerable to one person and one person alone, His majesty the King.

The PTP and their lacky upstart supposedly 'legal experts' and I use that term very loosely, are swimming in very shark infested waters when they start to use terminology such as lese majeste and impeachment of the highest law makers in the country. They have shot themselves squarely in the foot big time attempting this abuse of power to break down the constitution.

The more they come out with threats, and statements pertaining to refusal to observe the constitution or recognise the constitutional court and its rulings, then the more determined the judiciary will be to vote against the amendments and possibly even rile them into banning and dissolving.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

[smutcakes]

Where was this all seeing and helpful court when the constitution has been amended the last 100 times?Oh yes wait, its not political at all.

[h90]

Where was this all seeing and helpful court when the constitution has been amended the last 100 times?Oh yes wait, its not political at all.

they ruled a couple of times in the past......which amendment is OK and which is not is decided by the court, neither by you nor by the man in Dubai.