Constitutional Court says charter amendments unconstitutional

[spermwhale]

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

I have to hand it to the judges for their adherence to the law of the land. They didn't cave into the red thugs who have been threatening the judges and their families, acts that should be illegal. Have you ever heard of mobs protesting in front of high court justices' homes in the West? They'd be thrown in jail for contempt. Damn gangsters. GOOD JOB JUDGES!!!!

[Pi Sek]

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

Unbelievable... was thinking that, when tomross46 quoted this above, it was a joke and not a real quote.

Two sides - one is the UDD section of the Red Shirt movement, a section of a pro-democracy movement with fascist ideals. The other is the Constitutional Court, which has just ruled that amendments to make Thai constitutional Law less democratic is unconstitutional.

According to Nattawut, one is the "democratic force" and the other is "extra-constitutional force". Classic!

[GeorgeO]

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

a video clip showing bogus voting during the voting of the amendment to the Constitution in the House of Representatives by government MPs slipping several cards into the reader machine which was illegal and against the principle of justices

So when will we see these government MPs being impeached and banned from holding such positions...?!

[whybother]

What are the 312 MPs who said they won't accept this decision going to do now?

[metisdead]

An inflammatory baiting post has been removed.

[silent]

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.

and a plastic jesus riding on the dashboard so I don't care if it's dark or scary

[Thai at Heart]

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

I have to hand it to the judges for their adherence to the law of the land. They didn't cave into the red thugs who have been threatening the judges and their families, acts that should be illegal. Have you ever heard of mobs protesting in front of high court justices' homes in the West? They'd be thrown in jail for contempt. dam_n gangsters. GOOD JOB JUDGES!!!!

I think so. And this reactionary idea that to propose changing the consitution should somehow mean that a whole political party should be disbanded being squished is also brilliant.

What they have basically come up with so far, is that PTP have come up with a piece of work that is a C-, if they want an A+ they need to find another way. As for the proxy voting of MP's, I wish that the CC had stood up and said that this would be classed as a crimminal offence, and those who perpetrate it in future will be locked up for 5 years.

[jayboy]

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.

Disagree completely though there's a certain karma given PTP's foolish attempt to steamroller the umbrella amnesty.Verdict underwrites the wholesale politicisation (keeping the Senate 50% appointed is fundamental for the old unelected elites) of the Constitututional Court.Furthermore the contempt for elected politicians was very clear.The Court ludicrously tried to set a precedent for any elected government to make a change to the coup makers driven 2007 constitution.There's absolutely no reason why the 2007 constitution should be sacrosact.Ironic that the excellent 1997 constitution largely driven by Khun Anand was trashed without a thought.No progress at all and Thailand remains stuck in its old rut.

[bigbamboo]

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.

You ask why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

I suggest you take a look at the shower of corrupt delinquents who masquerade as MPs for the answer to that one.

[dru2]

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.

Thin Lizzy...

[Spare]

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.

Please try to respect Thai count, and not try to out smart them.

Things change, and people move on.

[kirk0233]

I really don't see how allowing the senate to be democratically elected is unconstitutional; unless there is some vested interest that fears an elected senate.

[Thait Spot]

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.    

Desperadoes sounds more apt

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

I really don't see how allowing the senate to be democratically elected is unconstitutional; unless there is some vested interest that fears an elected senate.

It should not be allowed to become a rubber stamp for the parliament. How they go about doing making it an elected senatet, is the issue, but by having a completely elected senate with relatives of sitting MP's allowed, it would have become like it was at the end of Thaksin's time.

That is not what Thailand needs. Now if they want an elected one 100%, there are many ways to skin a cat, by using the terms of their seats, and qualifications to sit, to allow the government to have some influence on the makeup of the senate to match the mood of the country, but this shouldn't be done over a short time frame. They could make a sitting senator sit for 10 years, but by lottery, 20% of all seats must come up for election every 5 years?

Thus over a 10 year period, it might be possible to move the composition of the senate, but to allow it to occur largely on the same timescale as in the parliament is not what they senate is meant to represent. What PTP is trying to do is subvert the system.

[Tatsujin]

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.

<bites tongue to prevent yet another ban>

[Tatsujin]

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.

There is indeed, they get moved to an inactive post for a year or two before being allowed to return to continue screwing people over left, right and center. It's modeled on the way the Royal Thai Police do things.

<sarcasm>

[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.

You ask why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

I suggest you take a look at the shower of corrupt delinquents who masquerade as MPs for the answer to that one.

No worries then

Those rightfully born to govern are standing by.

[jayboy]

I really don't see how allowing the senate to be democratically elected is unconstitutional; unless there is some vested interest that fears an elected senate.

Er, yes there is.

[Pi Sek]

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.

<bites tongue to prevent yet another ban>

Having a devil's advocate or whatever is a good thing, I might even argue democratic. It's important to see all sides in the interests of proportionality.

[Tatsujin]

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.

You ask why shouldn't politicians have total control of parliament?

I suggest you take a look at the shower of corrupt delinquents who masquerade as MPs for the answer to that one.

SUGGESTED EDIT: I suggest you take a look at the shower of corrupt delinquents (from all parties) who masquerade as MPs for the answer to that one.

[SABloke]

According to PTP cheating is not serious - just a minor issue.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Charupong-slams-ruling-30220136.html

[Tatsujin]

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.

<bites tongue to prevent yet another ban>

Having a devil's advocate or whatever is a good thing, I might even argue democratic. It's important to see all sides in the interests of proportionality.

Devil's advocate is fine . . . but you know already what I think about certain posters here.

[gerry1011]

And now let's see what the red idiots do. More mobs expected for the next few months? Or are judges going to get threatened with blood thrown at their houses?

Of course you can expect more mobs (besides the mobs of the dems, yellows and affiliated colors) for the next few months...

Or is this only a privilege reserved for the (you "name" them) ones who want to topple elected government?

Maybe the Dems could bring the question to yet another court

Just to annoy millions of people, of course. Not to bring any type of reconciliation.

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

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.

<bites tongue to prevent yet another ban>

Having a devil's advocate or whatever is a good thing, I might even argue democratic. It's important to see all sides in the interests of proportionality.

It is a role that has to be played within a democratic framework. An elected senate does not help to get better written democratic laws, and certainly does not increase the checks and balances. I think one of the best reasons to have an appointed senate or upper house is to prevent nonsense laws being rammed through on a political whim.

where was the senate when Thaksin decided to ban booze in the afternoon only to realise after the even that this messed up with wholesalers so the "buy a case" bit was added? Where were they when he rammed through the no selling petrol after 9pm to save fuel bulls**t? If nothing else, an appointed senate can simple give the parliament pause to write better laws. At the end of the day, I don't expect MP's to act in the nation's best interests because they are elected, so someone has to act independently in the national interest, and that is where they senate comes in.

The national interest cannont be aligned 100% with an elected body, because by definiton it is partisan, and run by majority.

[tingtongfarang]

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

he used super glue, i feel sure that his mates have mentioned it to him.

[jdinasia]

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.

Let me help you out for the second time .....

The Constitutional Court in 2013 has one job only ... to determine if something is constitutional. All your whining and moaning about a historical document that is NOT the constitution of Thailand has absolutely no bearing on the decision today. What was constitutional in 1945, 1992, or 2006 isn't an issue. What is constitutional today is. Your argument is similar to saying that "since a poll tax was constitutionally legal prior to Jan 23 1964, then it is legal now even though the constitution was changed ......."

Perhaps you should go back and read the original post in this thread again as well as the updates to it.

[khunken]

A very good judgement IMO.

It just amazes me that some posters cannot see that an elected senate just becomes a rubber stamp body for the parliament. I suppose that anything that reinforces the misrule of the Thaksinists is good for their version of 'democracy'.

A senate is supposed to perform a check on parliament - not like the one resulting from the 1997 constitution which contained a majority of TRT relatives and supporters.

The method of electing/appointing the senators probably needs changing but that requires a parliament to think of the country first - not have priority one & two the orders of a criminal fugitive.

[jdinasia]

Of course you can expect more mobs (besides the mobs of the dems, yellows and affiliated colors) for the next few months...

Or is this only a privilege reserved for the (you "name" them) ones who want to topple elected government?

Maybe the Dems could bring the question to yet another court

Just to annoy millions of people, of course. Not to bring any type of reconciliation.

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Gerry, you have been asked multiple times (and have failed to answer on multiple times) exactly what has PTP done to bring about any type of reconciliation? Or do you suggest that the amnesty bill that the pushed through while refusing to allow time for debate between readings , and that was widely despised by people that identify as Red, and yellow, and no color at all was anything more than an attempt to whitewash Thaksin?

This story is about the Constitutional court ruling and not violent militant reds, or ultra nationalist PAD yellows or any other color coded group.

[Nickymaster]

Yingluck's reaction to the court's ruling:

[Thai at Heart]

Yingluck's reaction to the court's ruling:

Surprised she did'nt jump about the whistling.