Pheu Thai issues statement to denounce Constitutional Court's ruling

[Lite Beer]

Pheu Thai issues statement to denounce Constitutional Court's ruling
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Pheu Thai Party Thursday issued a statement to condemn the Constitutional Court's ruling on amendment bill related to senators as a "coup".

The statement said the court's ruling interfered in the affairs of the parliamentarians, and such became like coup against the ruling mandate of the people.

The statement was made in nine points as following:

1) The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution.

2) Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to the Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes, which are the change of the ruling system from the Constitutional Monarchy and the change of form of government. The amendment on the composition of the Senate had nothing to do with the two prohibited changes. Moreover, the Constitution Court used to rule that parliamentarians can amend the charter.

3) The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review the petitions against the charter amendment bill. The action warranted impeachment or criminal process against the Constitutional Court judges.

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

5) The citing of the rule of law was done without proper ground. The court did not cite how the international practice was done and the Constitutional Court judges themselves did not respect the principle. For example, three of the judges used to be on the panel that drafted the 2007 Constitution and one of the three used to face opposition against him taking part in the judicial review in the earlier case. The opposition prompted him to withdraw from the earlier case but now he would not withdraw from the review of the latest case. He used to explain his view clearly that retroactive penalties can be done if the penalties are not for criminal cases. Such stand led to the dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party and five-year political ban of the Thai Rak Thai executives. And the executives were not informed of the charges against them and were not allowed to defend themselves. As a result, had the three or four judges withdrawn from the case, the ruling would have been otherwise.

6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions.

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

9) It would have been fine had the Constitution authorised the Constitutional Court to check the works of parliamentarians. But the Constitution does not authorise the court to do it. As a result, the Parliament has the power to perform its duty. The duty performing of parliamentarians was also endorsed by all charters before the 1997 charter. Whether the performance of parliamentarians is good or satisfactory in the eyes of the public or suitable or not, the people will decide in elections. This is the principle of the using of the ruling mandate. The court must not violate this principle of ruling mandate because doing so was tantamount to a coup that seized the ruling power from the people

-- The Nation 2013-11-21

[whybother]

7) The court clearly interfered in the power of the legislative branch by ruling that the deliberation process of the bill violated meeting regulations of the Parliament. If such interference is not challenged, from now on the court will be asked to consider more cases of alleged violations of meeting regulations and the House and Senate will not be able to perform their duty.

They make some points worthy of discussion, but this wasn't one of them. If they break the rules of the parliament, they aren't performing their duty. Who should consider cases of violations of parliament regulations if not the courts?

[skills32]

She makes some good points, I think but am not sure.

[Thainy Tim]

I think a little differently.

I don't think any of their points are valid for the simple reason that the constitutional court is charged with protecting as well as upholding the constitution from parliamentary misuse and abuse of power.

The attempted senatorial amendments are well within the constitutional court's territory. It is their duty to overlook any changes that may be not in the country's best interest and they have a right to make a ruling.

The court knows the same as we all do. The amendments are nothing to do with democracy and the choice of the people, the amendments are for the government and them alone, so that they are able to control both houses. They know while they have a majority and they can use nepotism to its fullest to make sure they can ram any bill through as they so wish.

The CC knew all this as we all do, even the red shirts would have to admit that it is for the PTP, Thaksin and the coalition.

This will just make a mockery of the two house system and effectively make it a one house system. Should the Democrats ever gain a majority with or without a coalition, the PTP would be the first to complain that the ruling party should not be able to hold majority sway over both the houses.

Why do you think there is a senate in the first place?

The PTP and others need to be thankful that the CC did not start dissolving and banning. This is still possible by the 2.2 trillion loan bill that is now in front of them. It is not a good idea to antagonize this judiciary, it may be a lot harsher outcome next time.

If anyone is in any doubt of whether they agree or disagree, and this also goes for all the red supporters on here. I beg to ask you 3 questions.

1. Would you be so supportive of this government if they were running you own home country?

2. How would you expect the people to react to this sort of behavior from you own home country's government?

3. How do you think the next government would be able to perform if for example, the Dems won an election next year. Even though the new senate is stuck with a huge red coalition majority for the next 5 years due to being elected before the general election? Do you think the red senate will allow a single democrat government bill go through, being as how we know politicians act in this country??

Still think it is all constitutional?

Edited November 21, 2013 by Thainy Tim

[Sunderland]

Taxi for Pheu Thai.

You won't be missed when you're gone.

[thaicbr]

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

This is my favourite. As far as i understand it The PM has 20 days to submit the bill for Royal command. Even though the PM and government knew that a complaint had been passed to the CC she went ahead the next day and sent it off to the King.

But some excellent info here:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/113913/yingluck-and-the-submitting-of-the-charter-amendment-to-the-king/

[15Peter20]

8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

This is my favourite. As far as i understand it The PM has 20 days to submit the bill for Royal command. Even though the PM and government knew that a complaint had been passed to the CC she went ahead the next day and sent it off to the King.

But some excellent info here:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/113913/yingluck-and-the-submitting-of-the-charter-amendment-to-the-king/

So where - in that precise of yours - was any protocol broken?

Okay, you are saying she ignored a complaint which may or may not have been lodged in an appropriate manner at an appropriate time, but I gather she didn't break any rules. Your criticism seems based on the fact that she ignored a complaint which itself may have been made outside the very set of procedural steps that she is said to have followed, is that right?

[monkeycountry]

Dear PTP

Bla bla bla

The only people who care what you have to say or what you think about anything, are the red shirts, and they do not understand most of the points above as the wording is too complex for them. Neither do they understand any of the constitutional paragraphs you are referring to.

May I suggest you keep it short and simple as usual, and with no legal references. Such as "Abhisit is bad" or "The democrats wants a coup" or "let's burn down Bangkok" or something similar to that.

Anyway, do not worry, Tida and Jatuporn know what I am talking about and how to please the red crowd. At the next rally they will translate the 9 points down to "The CC judges blocked our law, let's attack their homes!!"

[monkeycountry]

Everyone seem to throw the word democracy around all the time. I think it would be interesting if the house speaker one day spontaneously asked all MPs to write down what they think "democracy" means, and then collect and post all the definitions for the public to see.

I think the results would be rather interesting, and I think it would show that many, if not most, MPs (on both sides) have no idea what democracy means

[PeterSmiles]

The man from Dubai get's really desperate to come back isn't it. Let him come back, I'm sure he will be welcomed with 21 salute shots like every hero.

Not sure though if all 21 will be pointed to the sky.

[GrantSmith]

 

 8) After the Parliament passed the bill in the third reading and the prime minister submitted the bill for the royal command, the next step will depend as to whether the King will approve the bill or wait until 90 days without sending the bill back to the Parliament. But the court violated the King's power by accepting the petitions against the bill for reviewing without basing its decision on any provision of the charter.

I think point 8 is treading on dangerous ground in terms of violating section 112...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ggold]

She makes some good points, I think but am not sure.

I think it is open to interpretation! To me it reads as we are not interested in what the court decided, We are going to do what we want regardless, and these are the reasons, which you could argue mean exactly the opposit of their claim.

If they had their way who would check the legality of their policies. They are not interested in concensus from all parties, or even offering a referendum, which if they had the suport they claim for the constitutional changes, they could hold a referendum, again they are not interested in that, and because of the way they have handled this whole affair would lose the vote!

I think we can assume they will inact the changes if it is returned signed to Parliament by those we are not allowed to discuss.

Edited November 21, 2013 by ggold

[waza]

4) The Constitutional Court cited the rule of law in making the ruling. But in doing so, the court interpreted and expanded its own power more than what stated in the Constitution. The rulings in the case of Article-291 amendment bill and in the Senate composition bill showed that the people's representatives, who have received the people's mandate to amend the charter to make it legitimate, democratic and fair, cannot amend the charter either by rewriting it entirely or changing only parts of it.

Just an observation, yes the PTP does have a mandate but obviously their attempt to subvert the constitution was ruled illegitimate, undemocratic and unfair, not only by the CC but also by the peoples court of public opinion. This was clearly demonstrated by the lack of public support for the government's cause not only in the street but in the mass and social media.

[Pi Sek]

The simple denouncement of the Constitution Court's ruling is unconstitutional according to the current Constitution - as in, it's written into the Constitution. The Court's decision is final - whether or not it was correct (which I think it was) is of no concern.

Peua Thai are digging themselves into a hole here. I was happy they didn't punish Peua Thai - it wasn't bureaucratically correct, but because it was sensible. That's the positive side of a legal system that doesn't recognise or abide by precedents.

Peua Thai said they would accept the ruling after it was made... now it's about-turn time again. Disgraceful, and fully deserving of another Constitution Court judgement, perhaps more severe this time.

[wayned]

Taxi for Pheu Thai.

You won't be missed when you're gone.

Does Thailand have a "hazardous waste" dump?

[JRSoul]

Everything that restricts PTP or that they simply don't like is a coup. A nice simple word with "bad" connotations easily understood with little thought process involved which will appeal to their red supporters.

Cue Jatuporn, Nuttiwhat and the other paid propagandists to feign outrage, and the PTP supporters on TVF to start diverting topics away from the 'sticky' bits.

[Bluespunk]

"6) It was extreme dangerous for democracy when the court claimed that the amendment bill violated several articles of the Constitution because the judges themselves abused their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions."

No it isn't and no they didn't.

[webfact]

POLITICS
Pheu Thai blasts court
The Nation


Pheu Thai MPs yesterday issue a party statement dismissing the Constitutional Court

BANGKOK: -- Ruling party says verdict blocking charter amendment on senators a virtual coup d'etat; coalition to push for impeachment of five judges who voted bill as unconstitutional.

A constitutional crisis is brewing after the Pheu Thai Party strongly lashed out against the charter court's ruling, saying the court's action was tantamount to a coup d'etat.

Pheu Thai's legal adviser, Chusak Sirinil, said the ruling coalition parties were preparing to file two charges against five court judges who ruled that the charter amendment was unconstitutional, for violation of the Constitution's Articles 157 and 112 (interference and violation of the King's power).

The ruling, which killed the bill, was announced while the law is pending royal endorsement.

While the issue of the court's authority to rule on the case is being hotly debated, on the other front, anti-government groups have started their campaign to oust the government. Five impeachment petitions have been submitted to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which will be combined into a single case. Named in the petitions are House speaker, Senate speaker and 312 other parliamentarians related to the charter amendment.

In a three-point statement, Pheu Thai said the court's ruling was an interference in the affairs of parliamentarians, and as such was like a coup against the mandate of the people. The statement was issued a day after the Constitutional Court ruled that the charter amendment bill regarding senator selection, endorsed by 312 parliamentarians, was unconstitutional.

"The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people's constitution," Pheu Thai said.

It also noted that Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes: a change in the ruling system from Constitutional Monarchy, and a change in the form of governance. The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review petitions against the charter amendment bill. The party said the action warranted impeachment or criminal proceedings against the Constitutional Court judges. (The full version can be seen here: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Pheu-Thai-issues-statement-to-denounce-Constitutio-30220254.html).

Extremely dangerous

"It is extremely dangerous for a democracy when the court claims that the amendment bill violates several articles of the Constitution but the judges themselves abuse their authority outside the Constitution's scope to reach such decisions."

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana told the House yesterday that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has instructed the Council of State to study the ruling and advise the government what to do next as the ruling was unprecedented.

The NACC yesterday decided to launch an inquiry into MPs and senators involved in the charter amendment. The inquiry is a first step for impeachment and criminal proceedings. Should the NACC find cause for removal from office, the case would be forwarded to the Senate to hold an impeachment trial. Should there be criminal culpability, the case would be tried in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. Three NACC members, Vicha Mahakun, Jaided Pornchaiya and Pakdee Pothisiri, have been designated as lead inquirers responsible for the case.

"The impeachment petition is not meant as a revenge but is to uphold the rule of law," Prasarn Marukpitak, a member of the 40 Senators Group that filed the petition said.

Former charter framer Seri Suwanphanont said impeached MPs would not qualify for re-election and would be banned from casting legislative votes during trial. Should the impeachment trial be activated, the MPs involved will not be able to evade the proceedings even if the House were to be dissolved, he added.

Four Pheu Thai MPs issued an open letter calling for House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont to rebut the verdict.

The four, led by Weng Tojirakarn, said they were dissatisfied with the judicial intervention in legislative affairs.

"From what I see, the Constitutional Court staged a bogus coup aiming at seizing power from the legislature even though the Constitution does not empower the court to meddle with the legislative work," he said.

Echoing Weng, MP Shinwat Haboonhad said the judicial dignity was not equal to that of MPs elected by the people.

Pro-amendment senators stepped forward to cry foul, saying the judiciary was interfering with the legislative process.

Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the court was empowered to review only an Act of Parliament and lower categories of legislations and not amended charter provisions. Senator Wicharn Sirichai-Ekawat said he duly noted that three dissenting judges had opined the court had no mandate. Senator Narumol Siriwat said in her opinion, the high court had no mandate to rule on the charter amendment. Another MP Cherdchai Tantisirin said he saw the verdict as a royal offence because it came after the amendment had been forwarded for royal approval.

The opposition lawmakers will next week finalise their decision on related litigation involving 312 government MPs and senators, chief opposition whip Jurin Laksanawisit said.

Jurin said should the coalition push for the final passage of the bill designed to overhaul the entire Constitution, then this would mean the government had not really abandoned its amnesty bill. The complete rewrite of the charter, as per Article 291 of the Constitution, would result in the cancellation of Article 309, seen as the key provision dealing with graft cases, he said.

Striking down Article 309 would mean the whitewash of graft violations, tantamount to de facto amnesty, he said.

Chief coalition whip Aumnuay Khlangpha said coalition lawmakers, too, will meet next week to map out their next move related to charter change.

Senator Surchai Chaitrakulthong said a group of 50 pro-amendment senators would on Monday hold a discussion on the implications of the amendment verdict.

Certain senators within the group appeared to have accepted the verdict contrary to an earlier rejection of the judicial mandate voiced by their fellow lawmakers.

They said they found the verdict acceptable since the outcome was not as bad as had been previously anticipated.

The high court found the bill unconstitutional but stopped short of penalising the coalition parties and lawmakers involved.


-- The Nation 2013-11-22

[Bluespunk]

This is going to end tears.

[Thai at Heart]

Wouldn't issuing a statement like this be essentially illegal in Thailand?

[Thait Spot]

Some people just don't know when to be quiet

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[whybother]

Basically, what Pheu Thai are saying is, because they are the elected government, they can change the law as they like, regardless if it is against the constitution.

Therefore, they could change the law that says that the King is head of state. They can do that because they are the elected government.

[webfact]

Pheu Thai Party up in arms against Constitution Court
By English News



BANGKOK, Nov 22 – The ruling Pheu Thai Party has rejected the Constitution Court’s verdict on the charter amendment and plans to remove six of the nine judges who voted for the judgement.

Pheu Thai leader Charupong Ruangsuwan met urgently with party executives yesterday to discuss the court’s verdict which ruled that the government MPs and senators breached the charter in passing a bill to change the composition of the Senate.

The current Senate is composed of elected and appointed senators but Parliament passed a bill which, if promulgated, will require all elected members for the Upper House.

Mr Charupong said the charter change, proposed by 312 MPs and senators, was in accordance with democratic principles and said that the lawmakers followed the 1997 people-initiated constitution.

He said Section 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to Parliament.

He said the bill, which was passed by the Lower and Upper Houses, was submitted to His Majesty the King for royal endorsement within 90 days.

The Constitution Court does not have the right to infringe on the right of the legislative branch and its Wednesday ruling on charter amendment has affected His Majesty’s power, said Mr Charupong. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2013-11-22

[thaicbr]

Pheu Thai Party up in arms against Constitution Court

By English News

BANGKOK, Nov 22 – The ruling Pheu Thai Party has rejected the Constitution Court’s verdict on the charter amendment and plans to remove six of the nine judges who voted for the judgement.

Pheu Thai leader Charupong Ruangsuwan met urgently with party executives yesterday to discuss the court’s verdict which ruled that the government MPs and senators breached the charter in passing a bill to change the composition of the Senate.

The current Senate is composed of elected and appointed senators but Parliament passed a bill which, if promulgated, will require all elected members for the Upper House.

Mr Charupong said the charter change, proposed by 312 MPs and senators, was in accordance with democratic principles and said that the lawmakers followed the 1997 people-initiated constitution.

He said Section 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to Parliament.

He said the bill, which was passed by the Lower and Upper Houses, was submitted to His Majesty the King for royal endorsement within 90 days.

The Constitution Court does not have the right to infringe on the right of the legislative branch and its Wednesday ruling on charter amendment has affected His Majesty’s power, said Mr Charupong. (MCOT online news)

 

-- TNA 2013-11-22

But the 1997 constitution is the old one.... it's the 2007 one in effect now these PTP just don't understand the law of their own country. This is just a ploy to stop the problem and force the 1997 constitution back in.

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[whybother]

Just because they have the power to amend the constitution, doesn't mean that they can amend it how they like. While the constitution is there, they still need to abide by it.

[tingtongteesood]

The REtarDS can denounce it all they want but they MUST abide by it. Now stop crying and start doing your damn jobs or get out and let someone else do it better....

[slapout]

What this pack of maggots really deserve now is for the responsible legal entity to remove them from office, and require they and their political party/parties pay for the new election, nation wide.Then go for asset disclosure/seizure for the people to see that there are laws and enforcement in this country.

This is a chance for the Thai political system as it operates to be given a severe bitch slap, guilty parties repay some of what they have plundered from the national treasury, while sending a stern message to those who consider/participate in this type of self surving action in the future.

Go for the throat, no mercy rule allowed, and let the chips fall where they may, including any opposition who have been a pariticipant in this attempt at whitewashing a individuals/family'scronies, action for self benifet at the expense of all of the people in Thailand.

[Baerboxer]

The simple denouncement of the Constitution Court's ruling is unconstitutional according to the current Constitution - as in, it's written into the Constitution. The Court's decision is final - whether or not it was correct (which I think it was) is of no concern.

Peua Thai are digging themselves into a hole here. I was happy they didn't punish Peua Thai - it wasn't bureaucratically correct, but because it was sensible. That's the positive side of a legal system that doesn't recognise or abide by precedents.

Peua Thai said they would accept the ruling after it was made... now it's about-turn time again. Disgraceful, and fully deserving of another Constitution Court judgement, perhaps more severe this time.

This is how PTP always seem to behave. Say one thing, change their mind. Then change again and go back to square one.

We won't accept, we will accept, we won't accept ....... and so on. Unfortunately this is not surprising. Tell so many lies and its hard to recognize the truth anymore.

You can see their frustration. They can't be bothered with all the rules, procedures, checks and balances. We are the government and we can do what we want - anyone not agree or comment against us is bad.

At least it seems more and more Thai people are waking up to the reality of what the current government is really like, and what their agenda really is.

If they were sensible they'd have accepted the decision gracefully - and done something positive about the MPs who acted illegally voting for colleagues. But, this isn't a party that is concerned about the electorate, doing what's right, or even knowing right from wrong. - well, not for another 2 years.

[jdinasia]

Just because they have the power to amend the constitution, doesn't mean that they can amend it how they like. While the constitution is there, they still need to abide by it.

The court appears to have ruled that changing how senators are chosen does in fact change the government in a way that is significant enough to breach the constitution.

The question is, while maintaining this constitution how can issues in the make-up of parliament be done? Can it be done via referendum legally?

[Baerboxer]

Just because they have the power to amend the constitution, doesn't mean that they can amend it how they like. While the constitution is there, they still need to abide by it.

That's exactly right - and precisely what they don't like. The mindset, from the boss downwards is very much "we've been elected, we're in charge, we can do what we like now". This has been demonstrated time and time again by their actions.

They have always had the choice to write a new constitution. This would mean going to the people with a referendum. Despite all their rhetoric about being the "majority party, landslide victory, the true democracy party" they know they would not win a referendum. Besides which, they don't really care what anyone else thinks.

They could have done this early in their term, when still popular, but presumably thought too risky. The loss of recent elections they considered safe must have made them more nervous.

Now the games up. People can see them and their agenda for what they are. So the gloves are off. They seem to have decided to go for all or nothing.

Someone needs to get a grip on them, before they plunge the country into anarchy and chaos.

If a government openly says it will not abide by the law, and openly acts illegally with no recourse or consequence then what hope for society.