Amendment bid 'violated Thai charter'

[webfact]

Amendment bid 'violated charter'
Kornchanok Raksaseri
The Nation



Constitutional Court mostly quiet for hourlong charter change ruling

BANGKOK: -- THE CROWD outside the Constitutional Court yesterday was composed mostly of the media. They were awaiting the court's ruling on the constitutionality of the charter amendment related to senators' selection and qualifications - and without them the court building would have been a very quiet place yesterday.

At 1pm, two judges - Suphot Khaimuk and the court president, Charoon Intachan - shared the reading of the ruling with seven other judges and finished within less than an hour. The court found the proposed charter change on the selection and qualifications of senators was unconstitutional, both in terms of the process and the content.

But they dropped a request for political party dissolution and voting rights revocation against the 312 legislators who sponsored the charter change, saying it lacked the conditions cited in Article 68 of the Constitution.

Only a few dozen court-supporters gathered outside the building, together with a few hundred police officers guarding the compound, while another batch were on duty inside the building.

The court's ruling started with an introduction that the 2007 Constitution promoted people's freedom and political participation and included checks-and-balances for the parliamentary system. Then it declared that the people had the right to protect the Constitution and the court had the power to consider it.

The judges continued, saying that the charter does not allow abuse of power or conflict of interest. The "Rule of Law" principle was to be upheld, the ruling said. This principle was not limited to the written law, but referred to legal ethics to ensure that political institutions were working honestly and independently for righteousness and justice, to prevent abuse of power or conflict of interest.

"As the democratic system uses the [will of the] majority to judge, how can we [consider] oppression of the minority [which] until it has no place in a democratic administration?" Suphot read.

Court president Charoon continued, saying that when it came to the content of the charter amendment, the proposed changes to allow family members of MPs to run in senatorial elections would diminish the will of the Constitution, to separate the House and the Senate and uphold checks-and-balances.

The judges then voted 5:4 that the charter amendment violated Article 68 of the charter.

The charter amendment was declared unconstitutional as the court found differences and changes in crucial parts of the original charter-change draft submitted by the 312 MPs and senators, and the draft submitted for the first reading deliberation.

These parts included the clause that would allow family members of MPs to run in a senatorial election.

Besides, the court said, the deliberation period for the second reading was made unclear, cut short and with a bias depriving the opposition's right to speak. The retroactive voting was illegal. These breaches were against Articles 125 and 3 respectively.

Citing video clips submitted by the complainants and witnesses' testimonies that some MPs dishonestly used their colleagues' identification cards to register to vote for the charter change, the court concluded the process was illegal. The parliamentarians violated the Articles on the role and obligations of politicians, as well as the rule of law, the court said.

Complainant Democrats Wiratana Kalayasiri and Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, as well as Senator Rosana Tositrakul, came to hear the ruling. The defendants sent only a few representatives.

In the morning, a group of court supporters, who said they were from the People's Alliance for Democracy and just arrived from Nakhon Ratchasima, displayed banners inside the building for about an hour before moving outside the court, where dozens of members of the Thammatipatai group of court supporters had camped.


-- The Nation 2013-11-21

[ramrod711]

But they dropped a request for political party dissolution and voting rights revocation against the 312 legislators who sponsored the charter change, saying it lacked the conditions cited in Article 68 of the Constitution.

This is good news, i think, dissolving political parties has to stop. Individual members should be prosecuted fo crimes, and MPs should not be immune from prosecution, but to shut down an entire party and ban members who may be guilty of nothing is wrong.

[infernalman7]

I agree. Lawmakers should not be punished for trying to push for a more open system.

They are not guilty. Not to mention the Thai constitution in its current incarnation does not even make the constitutional court itself legit.

[jpinx]

Who appointed the judges in the constitutional court ? I confess to not being familiar with the structure of Thai politics, but how does the constitution fit in with the charter (or vice-versa) and who wrote them?

[whybother]

I agree. Lawmakers should not be punished for trying to push for a more open system.

They are not guilty. Not to mention the Thai constitution in its current incarnation does not even make the constitutional court itself legit.

Why wouldn't the Constitution Court be legitimate under the current constitution? It's not like it was *added* into the 2007 constitution.