Constitutional Court says charter amendments unconstitutional

[jdinasia]

BTW --- is it just me or does the caption for the picture in the OP not match the picture itself? It says the pic is from Chaeng Wattana, but it is obviously from Silom!

[waza]

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.

That has nothing to do with what you posted, don't try to pull the wool over the forum members eyes Fab4, take heed of metisdead's warning.

Edited November 20, 2013 by waza

[MikeOboe57]

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.

To anyone with even just minimal knowledge of democratic principles, the PTP maladministration and that "House Speaker", the court ruling did not come unexpected. The only surprise to me was that they did not send PTP down the drain, and that 4 judges apparently support the idea that the CC is not authorized to protect the constitution.

[webfact]

Constitution Court rules amendment is illegal



BANGKOK: -- The 9-member Constitutional Court today ruled that the amendment to the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate was illegally and covertly amended and therefore is invalid.

The ruling was read at 1.30 p.m.

The Constitutional Court said that the petitioners have strong evidence with a video clip showing bogus voting during the voting of the amendment to the Constitution in the House of Representatives by a government MPs slipping several cards into the reader machine which was illegal and against the principle of justices.

The court said that the bogus voting in such a significant bill is a serious threat to democracy and the principle of laws which should not be performed as a good lawmaker.

It said that the amendment which was sent to the Senate for deliberation by the House of Representatives

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/constitution-court-rules-amendment-illegal/

-- Thai PBS 2013-11-20

[Neilly]

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.

About time common sense was brought into play

[MrSlatersParrot]

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.

So what happens if the PTP party are banned?

Abhisit assumes the Prime minister's role?

The redshirts rally.

Abhisit retreats to barracks.

The army is called out to quell the redshirt demonstrators.

Thai visa trollers bay for blood?

Mass arrests of reds.

The tourists flee.

Foreign investments are withdrawn.

No stimulus package. No flood prevention measures. No reforms.

A government handout of 2000 baht per person perhaps?

"We don't know what to do with the money so we'll give it to you (for your votes perhaps?)"

Everyday information will be provided about the "fugitive" and measures to deal with him and his supporters.

Just a guess but informed by what happened last time.

[whybother]

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.

So what happens if the PTP party are banned?

Abhisit assumes the Prime minister's role?

The redshirts rally.

Abhisit retreats to barracks.

The army is called out to quell the redshirt demonstrators.

Thai visa trollers bay for blood?

Mass arrests of reds.

The tourists flee.

Foreign investments are withdrawn.

No stimulus package. No flood prevention measures. No reforms.

A government handout of 2000 baht per person perhaps?

"We don't know what to do with the money so we'll give it to you (for your votes perhaps?)"

Everyday information will be provided about the "fugitive" and measures to deal with him and his supporters.

Just a guess but informed by what happened last time.

Maybe you should look into what actually happened last time.

PPP got disbanded. The executives were banned. The remaining MPs formed PTP. A PTP MP became acting PM. The PTP decided not to call a general election. Abhisit was elected PM in parliament.

[Johnnie99]

I love it when a report uses the phrase 'Bangkok's elite'. I mean ... really? Elite? Bangkok?

[h90]

"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.

rofl.....

Arise, ye workers from your slumber,

Arise, ye prisoners of want.

For reason in revolt now thunders,

and at last ends the age of cant!

[waza]

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.

So what happens if the PTP party are banned?

Abhisit assumes the Prime minister's role?

The redshirts rally.

Abhisit retreats to barracks.

The army is called out to quell the redshirt demonstrators.

Thai visa trollers bay for blood?

Mass arrests of reds.

The tourists flee.

Foreign investments are withdrawn.

No stimulus package. No flood prevention measures. No reforms.

A government handout of 2000 baht per person perhaps?

"We don't know what to do with the money so we'll give it to you (for your votes perhaps?)"

Everyday information will be provided about the "fugitive" and measures to deal with him and his supporters.

Just a guess but informed by what happened last time.

Maybe you should look into what actually happened last time.

PPP got disbanded. The executives were banned. The remaining MPs formed PTP. A PTP MP became acting PM. The PTP decided not to call a general election. Abhisit was elected PM in parliament.

The an army of paid thugs came to Bangkok to burn, loot, murder and pillage, twice.

Edited November 20, 2013 by waza

[MrSlatersParrot]

Constitution Court rules amendment is illegal

BANGKOK: -- The 9-member Constitutional Court today ruled that the amendment to the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate was illegally and covertly amended and therefore is invalid.

The ruling was read at 1.30 p.m.

The Constitutional Court said that the petitioners have strong evidence with a video clip showing bogus voting during the voting of the amendment to the Constitution in the House of Representatives by a government MPs slipping several cards into the reader machine which was illegal and against the principle of justices.

The court said that the bogus voting in such a significant bill is a serious threat to democracy and the principle of laws which should not be performed as a good lawmaker.

It said that the amendment which was sent to the Senate for deliberation by the House of Representatives

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/constitution-court-rules-amendment-illegal/

-- Thai PBS 2013-11-20

So represent the bill to parliament.

Allow the opposition more time to debate and then vote again and represent to the court for the next round or will that mean that parliament can be found in contempt?

This is a bill about making senators all elected. It shouldn't be a rubber stamp. Who appointed the appointed?

[Thai at Heart]

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.

No it doesn't work well, for the absolute reason that there is no binding precedent. Everything is always open to interpretation on any given moment. The logic of legal judgements is not respected and can be re-written willy nilly to suit the moment. Thus it is absolutely unprincipled.

Just look at how they had to come to this point as to whether the court can intervene or not in this type of case. The amount of minute interpretation of the constitution that has gone into what was "supposed" to be meant, means that it is virtually impossible for this type of judgement to NOT be politicised, since the reason to intervene can only be done on request, which is a political request.

So now we have the incongruous position that the protection of democracy is to happen by retaining an unelected upper chamber. It is obviously an incredibly badly written constitution if if cannot define the fact that the senate is not there to further the will of the people, but to act as a reasonable check and balance to the will of the people through parliament.

[spirit47]

I suggest a test for all who want be active in political jobs, that they have knowledge about their political system...

Now, after we see that the Constitutional Court is not a Shiwanatra fake-Court, I must say:"If I ever need to blame myself, I know the PTP and the Redshirts have Experts to show me a proper way". Who ever say, Taksin will help the Isaan for growing up lies, they only use you...

[virtualtraveller]

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.

First Senate was noted for becoming a total rubber stamp for Thaksin, part of the problem. The present constitution was as much 'written' by 'the people' as the last one, in that a panel of experts drew it up, mostly based on the previous charter, closing holes but adding a few 'anomalies' which could be rectified if the two parties put their heads together, don't forget that, warts and all, the 2007 Charter passed a referendum, the 1997 wasn't put to referendum. Certainly people favour the 1997 version because of all the 'holes', I wonder why?

[waza]

Constitution Court rules amendment is illegal

BANGKOK: -- The 9-member Constitutional Court today ruled that the amendment to the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate was illegally and covertly amended and therefore is invalid.

The ruling was read at 1.30 p.m.

The Constitutional Court said that the petitioners have strong evidence with a video clip showing bogus voting during the voting of the amendment to the Constitution in the House of Representatives by a government MPs slipping several cards into the reader machine which was illegal and against the principle of justices.

The court said that the bogus voting in such a significant bill is a serious threat to democracy and the principle of laws which should not be performed as a good lawmaker.

It said that the amendment which was sent to the Senate for deliberation by the House of Representatives

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/constitution-court-rules-amendment-illegal/

-- Thai PBS 2013-11-20

So represent the bill to parliament.

Allow the opposition more time to debate and then vote again and represent to the court for the next round or will that mean that parliament can be found in contempt?

This is a bill about making senators all elected. It shouldn't be a rubber stamp. Who appointed the appointed?

Your forgetting that.........

Constitution Court decides with a vote of 6 against 3 that the amendment to have only elected Senators is unconstitutional.

[Thai at Heart]

I love it when a report uses the phrase 'Bangkok's elite'. I mean ... really? Elite? Bangkok?

Lol.

It means they have an honorary degree from Thamasat, and a Statue of David in the front driveway with a spout of water coming from his finger.

[Thai at Heart]

Constitution Court rules amendment is illegal

BANGKOK: -- The 9-member Constitutional Court today ruled that the amendment to the Constitution regarding the composition of the Senate was illegally and covertly amended and therefore is invalid.

The ruling was read at 1.30 p.m.

The Constitutional Court said that the petitioners have strong evidence with a video clip showing bogus voting during the voting of the amendment to the Constitution in the House of Representatives by a government MPs slipping several cards into the reader machine which was illegal and against the principle of justices.

The court said that the bogus voting in such a significant bill is a serious threat to democracy and the principle of laws which should not be performed as a good lawmaker.

It said that the amendment which was sent to the Senate for deliberation by the House of Representatives

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/constitution-court-rules-amendment-illegal/

-- Thai PBS 2013-11-20

Indeed, that entire electronic voting system where one person can swipe multiple cards is an absolute ABOMINATION to democracy.

[webfact]

Thai charter court rejects bill on composition of senators
By English News



BANGKOK, Nov 20 – The Constitution Court today ruled as unconstitutional the Parliament’s passage of a bill requiring all members of the Senate to be elected, not partially appointed.

The nine judges voted six to three in favour of lawmakers’ petitions against the approval of the bill which has been submitted by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to His Majesty the King for royal endorsement.

The majority of the judges decided that the charter amendment was a breach of Sections 122,125,126 of the Constitution but proponents of the bill would not be stripped of their political rights, and neither should the political party which sponsored the bill be dissolved.

The court also ruled that the MP who cast ballot for an absentee violated Section 126, Clause 3 of the Constitution. No punishment was announced for the inappropriate act. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-11-20

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Indeed, the role of the senate is vital in the whole process. I don't like how they go about choosing who should be appointed in there, and it's obvious that the point of them being there is to basically thwart PTP.

That all said, for the long run, it's better to have an unelected element that acts without a strong political bias and aims to make sure that the parliament writes good laws, and acts for the benefit of the country, than to turn it 100% into a rubber stamp.

[waza]

Thai charter court rejects bill on composition of senators

By English News

BANGKOK, Nov 20 – The Constitution Court today ruled as unconstitutional the Parliament’s passage of a bill requiring all members of the Senate to be elected, not partially appointed.

The nine judges voted six to three in favour of lawmakers’ petitions against the approval of the bill which has been submitted by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to His Majesty the King for royal endorsement.

The majority of the judges decided that the charter amendment was a breach of Sections 122,125,126 of the Constitution but proponents of the bill would not be stripped of their political rights, and neither should the political party which sponsored the bill be dissolved.

The court also ruled that the MP who cast ballot for an absentee violated Section 126, Clause 3 of the Constitution. No punishment was announced for the inappropriate act. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2013-11-20

There must be some standard punishment for fraud or malfeasance in the book already, perhaps Tarit or the AG could look into it.

Ps: that has to be the most obvious comb over I have seen.

[Arkady]

Seems like a pretty fair decision. Making the Senate nothing more than an extension of the lower house would indeed change the system of government. The procedural issues in the debates were also problematic. Not dissolving the coalition parties avoids giving them a reason to bellyache and lets people focus on the genuine unconstutionality of what they attempted to do.

[Moruya]

So, the bandits got their <deleted> slapped.

They are lucky to still be in power and even luckier that nobody was made accountable for their deceit of the electorate

[tomross46]

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

The boys are back in town and they want to party. There will be heartaches tonight. Some one will get hurt. The Eagles song.

[waza]

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

The boys are back in town and they want to party. There will be heartaches tonight. Some one will get hurt. The Eagles song.

and a bit of Thin Lizzy

[h90]

Thai charter court rejects bill on composition of senators

By English News

BANGKOK, Nov 20 – The Constitution Court today ruled as unconstitutional the Parliament’s passage of a bill requiring all members of the Senate to be elected, not partially appointed.

The nine judges voted six to three in favour of lawmakers’ petitions against the approval of the bill which has been submitted by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to His Majesty the King for royal endorsement.

The majority of the judges decided that the charter amendment was a breach of Sections 122,125,126 of the Constitution but proponents of the bill would not be stripped of their political rights, and neither should the political party which sponsored the bill be dissolved.

The court also ruled that the MP who cast ballot for an absentee violated Section 126, Clause 3 of the Constitution. No punishment was announced for the inappropriate act. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2013-11-20

There must be some standard punishment for fraud or malfeasance in the book already, perhaps Tarit or the AG could look into it.

Ps: that has to be the most obvious comb over I have seen.

You mean he is bald? Really? Now that you mention it, I can see it as well, but it is well hidden

[Pi Sek]

In my opinion, an excellent decision.

The Constitution Court, as they exist and are authorised to do, ruled that unconstitutional amendments to the existing constitution were unconstitutional according to the existing constitution.

By all rights, Peua Thai should have been punished... maybe not dissolved, but certainly punished. However, the judges exercised their discretion and rightfully showed an understanding of "Thainess", that sometimes enforcing the Law is socially unacceptable and dangerous. This truly is Thai democracy at work.

Good work, ought to leave most sides happy (or at least not unhappy)... the UDD and Peua Thai should be happy that PT have not been dissolved; the Democrat Party have won a lot of face and legitimacy without looking like fascists; the courts have proven to the public that the judicial branch is not a sell-out; and the public should be confident that their country is still theirs.

The only ones left unhappy should be the non-UDD Red Shirts, who really should now be pushing for PT's disbandment, and the ultra-Yellow Shirt section of society, who are not interested in anything except stagnant politics. And these these two groups represent a few thousand people at most.

[Moruya]

All 310 of them should be swelling the ranks of Bang Kwang and Klong Prem

[GrantSmith]

There must be some standard punishment for fraud or malfeasance in the book already, perhaps Tarit or the AG could look into it.

Ps: that has to be the most obvious comb over I have seen.

Comb over not withstanding, the CC, was well within their jurisdiction under Section 66 of the Organic Act of Political Parties to dissolve the PTP. I would imagine they still could rule this way, without being petitioned to do so, given their earlier ruling today.

The Opposition could quite possibly lobby the EC to issue a request for the dissolution or suspension of "activities" of the PTP under Section 67 of the same Act. But that could be a long and drawn out process, possibly not fitting within Suthep's manifesto time frame of Nov 29.

[ggold]

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?

So we can expect mass suicide of the red shirt reactionaries! Will Weng take the lead, that is the question?

[MrSlatersParrot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24997184

The Constitutional Court rejected proposals from the ruling Pheu Thai party to make the Senate fully elected.

It also rejected an opposition petition to dissolve Pheu Thai.

"The judges dismissed the petition to dissolve the political parties," a Constitutional Court judge said, reading the court ruling.

A majority of the court's judges also ruled against the government's proposals to enlarge the Senate, describing it as incompatible with the constitution.