Constitutional Court says charter amendments unconstitutional

[Lite Beer]

TIMELINE
Constitutional Court says charter amendments unconstitutional

BANGKOK: -- 8am : A group of anti-government protesters of Thammatipatai group are seen gathering in front of Government Complex A building on Chaeng Wattana road. Some of them told reporters that they were there to prevent anti-Constitutional Court group to rally at the venue. They say they would accept the court's ruling will be today.

9am: Democrat MP Korn Chatikavanij posts on his facebook that he had asked the Constitution Court to rule on the legality of the Bt2 trillion borrowing bill which the Senate already passed early Wednesday.

9.30am: The Constitutional Court convenes to decide whether the amendment of the charter on senators' election and qualifications violates the charter or not.

9.40am : Security officers at Constitutional Court ask Thammatipatai members who came to give moral support to the Court to leave the premises for safety reasons.

9.50am : Senator Paiboon Nititawan, a complainant of the petition, said at the Constitutional Court he was confident in the court’s justice.

10am : Democrat MP Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, former justice minister and another contender of the petition, arrives at the court. He gives no interview.

11.07am : Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. ’We won’t go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil."

11.20am: Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and her legal advisers will monitor and wait for the court's verdict reading at Thai Khu Fah building at the Government House. Earlier, Pheu Thai legal expert Pichit Cheunban meets PM's secretary general Suranand Vejjajiva at the Government House.

11.25am : Natthawut Saikua says at Rajamangala where hundreds of red shirts are gathering, ’Reds throughout the country ready to fight peacefully.’

11.27am: Red-shirt leader Nisit Sinthiprai tells red shirts at Rajamangala that power outside the system cannot defeat the power of the people.

11.29am : Jatuporn Promphan no verdict will be worse than what happened on April 10 and May 19, 2010.

1.25pm : Judges are reading the ruling: judges Suphot Kaimuk and Charoon Intacharn will be the readers. It is about 2.30 hours late as the Court is scheduled to deliver the verdict at 11am.

1.38pm : Judge starts the reading by saying that the Court has authority to consider the case and all authorities concerned are binding to follow the order. Earlier ruling Pheu Thai party including House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranond claimed that the Court has no authority to consider the case.

1.45pm : The Constitutional Court rules that the process to amend the charter on senators’ elections and qualifications had violated Article 291.

While the court was still reading its verdict, the early verdict stated that the draft submitted to the Parliamentary meeting was not the same as submitted by Udomdej Ratanasatien. As a result, the court said the process was illegal.

1.50pm : The Judge rules the second reading of the charter amendment bill on senators’ qualifications and elections had violated the meeting regulations. In the verdict, whose reading was still going on, the court said the debates by MPs and senators, who disagreed with the majority side of the vetting panel, were cut short. Moreover, the votes counts were retroactively done.

1.51pm : 2pm : Judges voted 5:4 that charter amendment violated Articles of the 2007 Constitution but dropped request to dissolve political parties.

-- The Nation 2013-11-20

[Lite Beer]

Senatorial amendment bill violates Article 68: Constitutional Court rules

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court ruled Wednesday that the amendment bill on senators' qualifications and elections violated Article 68. But the court dismissed the request for dissolution of the six coalition parties.

The court reasoned that the amendment bill violated the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

The court also slammed the amendments that would allow spouses and close relatives of MPs to stand in senatorial elections.

The court voted 5:4 to rule that the bill violated Article 68.

-- The Nation 2013-11-20

[Thai at Heart]

Boom.

And there goes the top of the pressure cooker.

Let's see the fallout.

[virtualtraveller]

Exactly as I thought. There was cheating and irregularities in the voting process and insufficient debate. A procedural error. Bill is void.

Those 310 law-makers have shot themselves in the foot pre-empting a decision by saying they won't accept the outcome, they are now in contempt of court and can certainly be punished.

Edited November 20, 2013 by virtualtraveller

[animatic]

It will hit the fan... all too soon.

[webfact]

Thai ruling party escapes punishment in key court ruling
by Thanaporn PROMYAMYAI

BANGKOK, November 20, 2013 (AFP) - Thailand's ruling party escaped punishment in a key Constitutional Court ruling Wednesday that had threatened to inflame the country's festering divisions as political rivals rallied in Bangkok.

The verdict on a government bid to establish a fully elected upper house had been keenly anticipated, with thousands of pro- and anti-government protesters massing in the capital.

Bangkok has played host to periodic outbreaks of street violence in recent years and hundreds of riot police were in and around the court ahead of its ruling.

Judges slammed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party for driving through the change to the charter -- drawn up under the military junta that deposed her divisive brother Thaksin -- calling it "unconstitutional".

But the nine-strong bench stopped short of moving to punish Yingluck's Puea Thai party.

The scuppered proposal to make the upper house fully elected would have returned the senate to its structure before the 2006 coup that removed Thaksin and ushered in a period of political turmoil.

In its ruling, the bench criticised the process of pushing the amendment through, but "dismissed the petition to dissolve" Puea Thai and its coalition partners.

A verdict that the ruling party acted unconstitutionally could have triggered its dissolution by the court, with leading MPs facing five-year bans from politics.

Analysts said that would have enraged the government's supporters, including the powerful "Red Shirts" who have massed in their tens of thousands since Tuesday in a stadium in the city suburbs.

But the court's decision was initially welcomed by both sides of Thailand's political divide.

"It's win-win verdict," a Red Shirt leader Nattawut Saikua said to cheers at the rally, adding the group was however unhappy with the amendment bid being ruled "unconstitutional".

The Red Shirts, who continue to call for a fully elected senate, say they will announce their next move on Wednesday evening.

A lawyer for the opposition Democrat Party meanwhile said the ruling should trigger the resignation of the under-fire premier.

"The amendment, which was not based on rule of law, but to benefit of specific people, cannot go through," said Virat Karlayasiri.

Judicial rulings have played an important role in politically turbulent Thailand.

Two pro-Thaksin premiers were forced from office in 2008 by such rulings, making way for the opposition Democrat Party, which is backed by the military and Bangkok's elite, to take power in a parliamentary vote.

Thailand's political temperature is already high after a controversial amnesty plan brought opposition rallies to Bangkok over fears it would have allowed Thaksin's return from self-imposed exile.

The amnesty bill was killed by a senate vote last week, but the anti-government rallies have persisted for a third week, although numbers have reduced to a few thousand over recent days.

Yingluck called for calm Tuesday, urging the rival political groups on Bangkok's street not to "be emotional and clash with each other".

Puea Thai swept to power in 2011 on a wave of support for Thaksin following deadly 2010 Red Shirt street protests, which were crushed in a bloody military crackdown under the then Democrat-led government.

Thaksin, a telecoms tycoon-turned-politician, has a strong electoral base, with ardent support from many in the country's rural and working class for a raft of popular policies.

But he is loathed by the Bangkok elite and middle class, who accuse him of corruption.

Analyst Thitinan Pongsudhirak, of Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, said the 2007 constitution aimed to rebalance the country's power structures away from the executive, by shifting more authority to the judiciary and making around half the senate appointed.

He said those who supported the coup against Thaksin saw the constitution as "a last line of defence" against him and his allies.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-11-20

[JRSoul]

Due process! We don't need no stinking due process.

[waza]

A win win for everyone so theres no reason to fight, but even so the Reds react in their usual manner......

Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. ’We won’t go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil."

Who are these reactionaries that Weng threatens?

[slapout]

Desolution petition dismissed, but the ruling on the amendement, should give a avenue to clip the wings of some of those who have openly thumbed their nose at the intent of the whole democtratic process. There are still other charges and procedures for which the government will have to defend itself.

Chalerm and company seem to have made another miscaculation but this mob only seem to know one way of approaching things. I WANT THINGS MY WAY.

[webfact]

Nattawut: New round of fight begins

BANGKOK: -- Following the ruling against senatorial charter amendment bill, red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikaur declared that a new round of fight has begun.

Speaking at the red-shirt rally at the Rajamangala Stadium, Nattawut declared: "The bell of a new round of fight between the democratic force and extra-constitutional force have begun!"


-- The Nation 2013-11-20

[MrSlatersParrot]

Quote:According to the ruling, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and his deputies wrongfully cut short the time scheduled for the debate on the issue, denying MPs the right to speak on the draft law.

"The court said the charter amendment would give "politicians" total control of parliament, which would be a retrograde step for the country."

Why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

Are they saying that the court decides on the merits of each bill after each is presented to the court by the minority opposition party as is the case now?

Is this minority rule?

Sad day. Trouble brewing.

[jdinasia]

The court reasoned that the amendment bill violated the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

So where were the Constitution Court when the 1996 Constitution decided on wholly elected Senators? (rule violation redacted)

Sadly you apparently don't even know what year the previous constitution was enacted.

Contrary to your confused thought processes, the Constitutional Court rules on the Constitution and not some other historical document.

[whybother]

Speaking at the red-shirt rally at the Rajamangala Stadium, Nattawut declared: "The bell of a new round of fight between the democratic force and extra-constitutional force have begun!"

What does he have planned for his extra-constitutional forces?

[Robby nz]

Nattawut: New round of fight begins

BANGKOK: -- Following the ruling against senatorial charter amendment bill, red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikaur declared that a new round of fight has begun.

Speaking at the red-shirt rally at the Rajamangala Stadium, Nattawut declared: "The bell of a new round of fight between the democratic force and extra-constitutional force have begun!"

He is right and so far the democratic forces have won....Twice.

[jdinasia]

Desolution petition dismissed, but the ruling on the amendement, should give a avenue to clip the wings of some of those who have openly thumbed their nose at the intent of the whole democtratic process. There are still other charges and procedures for which the government will have to defend itself.

Chalerm and company seem to have made another miscaculation but this mob only seem to know one way of approaching things. I WANT THINGS MY WAY.

Actually I THINK (not 100% sure) that the EC must either make the decision to disband based upon the CC's statement that the voting procedure in parliament was improper, or that they must be the ones that send that particular request to the CC.

[webfact]

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S RULINGS
Senatorial amendment bill violates Article 68: Constitutional Court rules
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court ruled Wednesday that the amendment bill on senators' qualifications and elections violated Article 68. But the court dismissed the request for dissolution of the six coalition parties.

The court reasoned that the amendment bill would destroy the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

The court also slammed the amendments that would allow spouses and close relatives of MPs to stand in senatorial elections. This would allow politicians of the lower chamber to dominate the upper chamber, the court ruled.

The court voted 5 to 4 in its ruling that the bill violated Article 68.

Article 68 prohibits anyone from seeking ruling power through unconstitutional ways.

The court also ruled that the bill violated Articles 122, 125, 126, and 291, which were related to the process of the bill's deliberations.

The court reasoned that it decided against dissolving the six parties because the MPs, who voted for the bill, did not commit any action that warranted that their parties be dissolved.

The Constitutional Court said the bill violated Article 291 because the draft submitted to the Parliamentary meeting was not the same as that submitted by Udomdej Ratanasatien. As a result, the court said the process was illegal.

The court also ruled that the second reading of had violated the parliamentary meeting regulations because the debates by MPs and senators, who disagreed with the majority side of the vetting panel, were cut short. The court said those who disagreed with the bill were treated with bias during the deliberations.

Moreover, the court ruled, the vote counts were retroactively done.

The court also found that the voting for the senatorial charter amendment bill was illegal because coalition MPs were seen on a video clip to vote for their peers.

The court stated that the law required each lawmaker to vote freely without being influenced by others.

The court said the conduct of voting for others was against the principle of honesty.


-- The Nation 2013-11-20

[moe666]

The court reasoned that the amendment bill violated the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

So where were the Constitution Court when the 1996 Constitution decided on wholly elected Senators? (rule violation redacted)

Sadly you apparently don't even know what year the previous constitution was enacted.

Contrary to your confused thought processes, the Constitutional Court rules on the Constitution and not some other historical document.

Some people just cannot get it right, just want to vent.

[virtualtraveller]

Well, the Dems at Ratchadamnern should now go home, they've done well lately, time to cool things down. They should now propose their own bill for a fully elected Senate that has some holistic constraints on it.

[uty6543]

Why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

Because they can't be trusted not to abuse their power.

[jdinasia]

Quote:According to the ruling, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and his deputies wrongfully cut short the time scheduled for the debate on the issue, denying MPs the right to speak on the draft law.

"The court said the charter amendment would give "politicians" total control of parliament, which would be a retrograde step for the country."

Why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

Are they saying that the court decides on the merits of each bill after each is presented to the court by the minority opposition party as is the case now?

Is this minority rule?

Sad day. Trouble brewing.

Parrot,

Let me try and help you out here. The upper house is supposed to be looking out strictly for the welfare of Thailand as a whole. They are not allowed to be members of political parties, hence not politicians,. PTP tried to change the rules to allow spouses and relatives of MP's to become senators. That is obviously against the intent of the constitution.

Is this minority rule? No

This is what is referred to as "Constitutional law" which is a part of the "rule of law."

In most democracies you will find that the court that is responsible for maintaining the constitution does exactly the same thing that this court just did. They read the law, review the facts, and then compare that to the constitution. The result is often not popular but always tends to be the correct decision based upon the law of the land.

[metisdead]

Posts in violation of this forum rule have been removed as well as the replies:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

[MrSlatersParrot]

The court reasoned that the amendment bill violated the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

So where were the Constitution Court when the 1996 Constitution decided on wholly elected Senators? How does the Constitution Court expect to be taken seriously if it's verdicts are whatever they feel like at the time.

I don't really know about that but maybe the circumstances were different then. The vote was 5 to 4 as I understand it so it wasn't a clear cut decision.

Glad they avoided the dissolution of the coalition parties as that doesn't seem to be all that helpful. The government now having the verdict can examine the it and plan what to do next rather than having the upheaval of dissolution. Of course saying they wouldn't abide by the decision wasn't the smartest thing to do.

Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly but this decision was about the procedure to change the senate rules being deficient. Does it mean that the change would still be unconstitutional if proper process had been followed.

A possibility perhaps about the procedure.

In a case like this proper reasonings and explanation should be laid out not just a short bald statement and the composition of the vote.

Split decision with casting vote from chairman perhaps?

Hardly unanimous. Explanations please gentlemen.

[jdinasia]

Well, the Dems at Ratchadamnern should now go home, they've done well lately, time to cool things down. They should now propose their own bill for a fully elected Senate that has some holistic constraints on it.

There are still a few issues that will keep the rallies on the streets for now. The Censure debates, the impeachments, and now probably a request to be sent to the EC requesting PTP to be disbanded.

[fab4]

The court reasoned that the amendment bill violated the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

So where were the Constitution Court when the 1996 Constitution decided on wholly elected Senators? How does the Constitution Court expect to be taken seriously if it's verdicts are whatever they feel like at the time.

dear Fab4, I may have missed who asked the CC to rule on the 1996 constitution and what was their decision can you point me in the direction of this gross abuse of power?

PS: The draft submitted to the Parliamentary meeting was not the same as submitted by Udomdej Ratanasatien: court. The process was illegal.........Court says charter amendment bill was significantly altered before it went to the parliamentary floor........... Court also criticises Parliament's refusal to give bill critics enough time to speak against it during debate........ Each of parliamentarians can only use the ID card to register once for a meeting. The clips and witnesses showed some used many ID cards.......The clip showed Narisorn ... holding a stack of over 2 ID cards and pressed the button to read the cards ( register) many times in a row...

Why cant this government just play it by the book, why must they always cheat, deceive and lie, the reality is they are their own worst enemies. My guess is it because they are the henchmen of a convicted criminal and its their nature.

Well it may have escaped your notice that the 1997 Constitution was the first one written by "the people". It was also the first time a fully, directly elected Senate had been brought into being. It was also the first time a Constitutional Court was formed. So here we have in the present day the Constitutional Court saying that directly elected Senators are unconstitutional, but from 1997 and up to 2006 the Constitutional Court said nothing about the supposed "unconstitutionality" of that arrangement.

So what has happened between the old Constitutional Court and the new one? A Coup (and two judicial coups) that's what. At least they shied away from a 3rd judicial coup.

[rubl]

"Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. ’We won’t go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil.""

Is it just me or does his communist past shine through sometimes? Just like his remark on eradication the Democrats.

[jdinasia]

I don't really know about that but maybe the circumstances were different then. The vote was 5 to 4 as I understand it so it wasn't a clear cut decision.

Glad they avoided the dissolution of the coalition parties as that doesn't seem to be all that helpful. The government now having the verdict can examine the it and plan what to do next rather than having the upheaval of dissolution. Of course saying they wouldn't abide by the decision wasn't the smartest thing to do.

Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly but this decision was about the procedure to change the senate rules being deficient. Does it mean that the change would still be unconstitutional if proper process had been followed.

A possibility perhaps about the procedure.

In a case like this proper reasonings and explanation should be laid out not just a short bald statement and the composition of the vote.

Split decision with casting vote from chairman perhaps?

Hardly unanimous. Explanations please gentlemen.

All 9 members vote.

Thai law does not require decisions to be unanimous as this is not a jury system in a criminal case in some Western countries.

The legal system here is what it is, There are things that I will never quite get used to in Thailand such as the lack of binding legal precedent. Overall, though, the system tends to work quite well.

[webfact]

Red shirts to declare stand on ruling at 8 pm

BANGKOK: -- Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn announced Wednesday afternoon that the red-shirt movement would declare its stand on the Constitutional Court's ruling at 8 pm.

The court has annulled the senatorial amendment bill, saying it was unconstitutional.


-- The Nation 2013-11-20

[jdinasia]

"Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. ’We won’t go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil.""

Is it just me or does his communist past shine through sometimes? Just like his remark on eradication the Democrats.

At least it was a brief statement and he didn't resort to Wenging in the New Year this time!========

=====update above====

He will be Wenging at 8pm

Edited November 20, 2013 by jdinasia

[PhilipCook]

gotta admit I enjoy when its not all smiles because people trying to change the laws to wave special interests crimes is nothing to smile about.

[dru2]

Quote:According to the ruling, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and his deputies wrongfully cut short the time scheduled for the debate on the issue, denying MPs the right to speak on the draft law.

"The court said the charter amendment would give "politicians" total control of parliament, which would be a retrograde step for the country."

Why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

Are they saying that the court decides on the merits of each bill after each is presented to the court by the minority opposition party as is the case now?

Is this minority rule?

Sad day. Trouble brewing.

Sad day for you, Parrot. I'm celebrating!