Constitutional Court verdict fails to restore political stability in Thailand

[webfact]

Verdict raises more questions
The Nation



Instability remains amid doubts about court's right to rule on charter change case

BANGKOK: -- The verdict of the Constitutional Court yesterday failed to restore political stability, as government supporters continued to ask if the court had the authority to review the case, while anti-government groups see it as a cue for more resistance.

The court yesterday struck down a charter amendment bill that calls for a fully elected Senate, saying the amendment would violate the principle of checks and balances, which is in violation of Article 68. To Pheu Thai Party's relief, with no order to dissolve the party, the Yingluck Shinawatra government remains in power. However, the ruling has sparked calls for Yingluck to step down for seeking royal endorsement for an unconstitutional bill and for impeachment of the 312 MPs who endorsed the bill.

The Constitution Court judges voted 5-4 that the content of the amendment was unconstitutional. Also in a 6-3 vote they ruled that the amendment process was unconstitutional under various articles of the Constitution, including a glaring act caught on camera showing coalition MPs voting for the amendment using others' identification cards. Sources said party dissolution was not recommended, as the judges believed the amendment was not meant to lead to insurrection or to unlawfully acquire administrative power. The judges said individual MPs or senators who voted in support of the amendment did not act in violation of Article 68.

However, the ruling was interpreted in different ways. Chulalongkorn University's constitutional expert Pornsan Liangbunlertchai noted that the ruling set a new standard in Thai politics, when the judiciary can intervene in the legislature. The whole system could collapse if parliamentarians don't understand the scope of authority of the judiciary and the legislature.

Meanwhile, the Pheu Thai Party has scheduled a meeting for today to devise tactics to fight the charter court ruling, party legal adviser Kramol Bandaipetch said. The tactics include calling for a joint parliamentary session to discuss the ruling, with coalition MPs and Pheu Thai-friendly senators voting to reject the ruling: the joint session would then pass Article 291, which would activate in future the entire charter amendment, in the third reading.

Outside Parliament, the red shirts plan to launch a signature campaign to impeach the entire nine-member charter-court quorum, and then file a malfeasance case against all of them, under Article 157 of the Criminal Code.

Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana said yesterday that a review was still required to see if the Constitutional Court had the authority to rule on the case. Under Article 68, the Constitutional Court's opinion can only be sought against persons behind an insurrection, which is tantamount to changing a democratic political system. This authority cannot be used against lawmakers, otherwise anybody can file whatever petition they want with the court, he said.

In today's ruling, he said the court only ruled that the bill could not be promulgated, but did not provide information on the consequences, which relieves pressure on some groups. As far as Phongthep is concerned, the court apparently did not want to spark a constitutional crisis, if other establishments disagree over the interpretation.

He also said Yingluck did not need to resign, as she - as the prime minister - is bound by law to send the bill approved by the House for Royal endorsement within 20 days after the approval date. She would be violating the Constitution if she fails to do so, he said.

Pheu Thai Party leader and Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan expressed strong opposition to the ruling, asking how the upper house with elected members could be worse than a Senate with partially appointed members.

He said the court's verdict would widen the growing rift among the people as one faction agreed with power of the people while the other faction supported the power of a few persons. Yet, he said the government would take responsibility for the majority of 63 million people, instead of the opinion of only a few persons.

Seeking the PM's resignation, elected Senator Rosana Tositrakul, one of the four petitioners seeking the court review on the bill, said: "It is normal to hold the prime minister accountable."

Democrat MP and another petitioner, Wirat Kalayasiri, said he welcomed the verdict for setting a precedent against the domination of majority rule and the wrongful voting procedures. He said he would cite the verdict as a basis for petitioning the National Anti-Corruption Commission to suspend House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij. Both chamber leaders had wrongfully supervised the legislative debate, leading to the wrongful casting of votes for the bill, he said.

The opposition Democrat Party is ready to seek impeachment of the 312 lawmakers who voted for the bill, through the NACC.

Democrat MP Wirat Kalayasiri said Senator Tuang Untachai had already petitioned the NACC to activate impeachment proceedings. He also expected the other two bills amending Articles 68 and 190 to also be rejected by the Constitutional Court.

Yesterday, anti-government protesters shouted with glee. Yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy lawyer Suwat Apaisak said the government was being defeated on all fronts. Former Democrat MP Suthep Thaungsuban, who is leading the anti-government rally, said the protest would continue and protest leaders would not pursue the impeachment of the 312 MPs and senators. "Resignation or House dissolution is not a guarantee that the Thaksin regime is over for good," he added.

Red-shirt leader Thida Thawornseth told supporters at Rajamangala Stadium last night to go home and see what the Suthep-led rally would do on Sunday.


-- The Nation 2013-11-21

[rametindallas]

As they say in Texas, "Somebody get a rope".

[Thainy Tim]

Just shows that failing to go the full hog and chop some heads and dissolve some parties didn't do the job properly. The contempt is still there.

I suggest to the honorable judicial members that they should start kicking folks out politics for each and every act of contempt of court... Including voicing rejection of the court's ruling, that ought to wind a few necks back in.

[Robby nz]

The court also said that under Section 216 of the charter, the court's ruling is legally binding on all parties concerned.

And still they refuse to accept that they are bound by the law of the land.

Red-shirt leader Thida Thawornseth told supporters at Rajamangala Stadium last night to go home and see what the Suthep-led rally would do on Sunday.

Could it be that the sponsors don't think the product is so great any more and have decided to withdraw support ?

[whybother]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

[NongKhaiKid]

Just shows that failing to go the full hog and chop some heads and dissolve some parties didn't do the job properly. The contempt is still there.

I suggest to the honorable judicial members that they should start kicking folks out politics for each and every act of contempt of court... Including voicing rejection of the court's ruling, that ought to wind a few necks back in.

The old Thai rule of " don't do unto others as one day they will not do unto you ".

[Baerboxer]

Haven't PTP MP's already said they wouldn't accept the court's verdict? So presumably they will carry on and ignore it. Or was this statement yet another white lie ?

Treating the symptoms of a cancer is not a cure. Removal is.

[Artisi]

Haven't PTP MP's already said they wouldn't accept the court's verdict? So presumably they will carry on and ignore it. Or was this statement yet another white lie ?

Treating the symptoms of a cancer is not a cure. Removal is.

Not to sure that the PTP MP's have the brains to think of something so simple as "I/we won't support it", sounds more like the voice of the fugitive being relayed through the dummies.

[jayboy]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

[Bpuumike]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

Indeed, pure compromise.

[jdinasia]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I may very well be wrong, but I think that the request for party dissolution must come from the EC. I am waiting to see what they do.

[tingtongteesood]

I wish the REtarDs would accept the rule of law and stop wasting time harrassing judges who are simply trying to do their job and look after the good of the country. NONE of you are above the law, accept the judges ruling and go home and lick your wounds....

[Thait Spot]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

"But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites......."

Thaksin Shinawatra

Yingluck Shinawatra

Nopadon Pattama

Jatuporn

Nattawut

Thida

Weng

etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[GrantSmith]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I may very well be wrong, but I think that the request for party dissolution must come from the EC. I am waiting to see what they do.

jdinasia, the Court can order the dissolution on it's own merit and doesn't need to rely on a request from the EC. The EC can of course petition the Court to dissolve the party.

Despite the Court throwing out the dissolution request yesterday, they can still dissolve the Party, should they choose to do so, at a later date.

I'm of the opinion the Court is waiting for the rest of the backlog to be cleared before it really weighs in and rings the bell.

They're going to be a busy bunch over the next couple of weeks.

[mrtoad]

I think that maybe the ducks are being lined up, and the courts will get a slam dunk to finish this corrupt administration.

[whybother]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

I don't really see the courts knocking back a single bill as being tyranny.

[jayboy]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

I don't really see the courts knocking back a single bill as being tyranny.

Who said it was? It is symptomatic however of a much wider issue, namely that a self perpetuating privileged minority (and a myopic largely Sino Thai urban middle class) in Thailand feels that it can overrule the majority's wishes - whether through military or judicial intervention.With Thaksin and the PTP there are of course plenty of tempting excuses.But ultimately the old unelected elites will fail - whether in a peaceful transition or a river of blood is really up to them to decide.

[techboy]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

Mr. Jayboy, you don't do such a bad job of producing a balanced summary yourself.

[Bluespunk]

"The verdict of the Constitutional Court yesterday failed to restore political stability"

How can you restore what never existed?

[khunken]

It seems that any of the possible rulings would have failed to restore stability. This ruling, that cut down the bill and didn't ban the MPs, is the closest they would get to a "everybody wins" or "nobody loses" solution.

I see the logic of your point and indeed partly agree with it.As a matter of detail the PTP needs to review very carefully its slovenly voting procedures which were rightly condemned by the judges.

But overall it's just the same old pattern of the old unelected elites fighting a rearguard action.The New York Times has a balanced summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/thailand-court-says-ruling-party-tried-to-overthrow-monarchy.html?ref=world&_r=0

Yes tyranny of the majority is a problem and has been preoccupying the attention of political philosophers for centuries, notably Edmund Burke.

But here in Thailand there is a more insidious problem - the tyranny of the minority.The distaste for democratic electoral politics is deeply ingrained among the elite and urban middle class, partly for valid reasons (hatred of corruption, notwithstanding the comic sight of Suthep heading this platoon) and partly for ignoble selfish reasons.

The answer, easier stated than implemented, is to improve the standard of politicians.There's no other way and to look to non democratic avenues leads to a "cure" worse than the disease itself.

I don't really see the courts knocking back a single bill as being tyranny.

Nor do I. Jayboy is one of a number of PTP/red shirt acolytes that attempt to fit Thai politics into the UK's Conservative vs Labour style of politics. It is patently obvious that this fails when no local political party has an ideology.

The so-called elite (non-Thaksin version) and middle-class don't have any collective distaste for democracy - many have an extreme distaste for self-serving politics with a dictatorial flavour that pretends to use their tax money to help 'The Poor'.

There has been no cure as yet as only foul-tasting medicine has been administered. Only when the root cause is addressed will Thailand have real democracy.

I know it's difficult to accept checks and balances when you support those whose preference is for the rubber stamp type.