Ruling paves way for Constitutional State: Nitirat Group

[Lite Beer]

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Ruling paves way for Constitutional State: Nitirat Group
The Nation

Photo by @phanasgook from the press conference

BANGKOK: -- The Nitirat Group warned Saturday if the Constitutional Court's ruling on the charter amendment on senator selection is upheld, it could pave way for the world's first constitutional state.

Law lecturer Vorachet Pakeerat said at a press conference today said that the "unconstitutional ruling" sets the precedence that lawmakers can no longer amend the Constitution without the court's approval.

"This will affect the democratic regime, which clearly separates the power of the legislative and the judicial branches. Whenever another attempt to amend the charter comes up again, the opposition could seek the court's ruling… Eventually, the court would be the establishment that authorises the amendments," he said.

The group announced that the court's ruling is unconstitutional, because the court had no authority to rule on the case and the court also committed an unconstitutional process in doing so.

"The Article 68 was drawn up on German experience, allowing the government to seek the constitutional court's endorsement to rip off the rights of a person, believed to commit an effort to change the regime. In the Thai case, those lawmakers are allowed by law to amend the charter. The court can't just assume the power to tell what the lawmakers can do or can't," Vorachet said.

The Nitirat Group also said in Thai protocol, the Attorney General's Office would use the power to seek the court's approval. However, in this case, the court took into consideration the petitions filed directly to the court by politicians. Moreover, this ruling involved the authority of lawmakers.

The court also failed to find legal reasons to support its ruling that the charter amendment was unconstitutional.

Vorachet said that parliamentarians should seek a vote to ignore the court's ruling, which is non-binding in nature as the court did not state penalties.

He warned that while the ruling is non-binding, it has been deployed by political groups to support their courses. If the situation continues, there will be no rule of laws in Thai society and "it would be difficult to cure or restore the situation in the future."

-- The Nation 2013-11-23

[Thai at Heart]

Aside from anything else, i would suggest that if the government of the day wants to go ahead and reform the constitution, they do so by making sure that all voting procedures and debating are carried out correctly. I mean honestly, when the Court can point out quite obviously that MP's have been using multiple voting cards, it shows that the system is completely sick.

So before they moan about a constitutional state, I suggest they admit that the entire process wasn't carried out in accordance with the expected rules. Once that is done, then they can moan about the conduct of the court, and about how the government can or cannot go about changing the constitution.

[bigbamboo]

A constitutional state?

The way Thailand is carrying on it will be lucky if it doesn't end up as a failed state.

[Tatsujin]

A constitutional state?

The way Thailand is carrying on it will be lucky if it doesn't end up as a failed state.

Too late.

[rametindallas]

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

It is entirely too easy to change/manipulate the Thai Constitution compared to an advanced Democracy as the U.S. is. I'm not saying the Nitirat Group is stupid but they are ignorant of the World outside of Thailand and their past statements tell me they are pro-Thaksin.

[E1717007]

They have the majority but yet they used underhanded method to pass the bill. They really screwed themselves.

Sent from my ME172V using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

It is entirely too easy to change/manipulate the Thai Constitution compared to an advanced Democracy as the U.S. is. I'm not saying the Nitirat Group is stupid but they are ignorant of the World outside of Thailand and their past statements tell me they are pro-Thaksin.

But it is the original writers who screwed this up.

Went leave such huge loopholes to enable it to be changed?

[gerry1011]

Very interesting article

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Sunderland]

A constitutional state?

The way Thailand is carrying on it will be lucky if it doesn't end up as a failed state.

Too late.

It's in a bit of a state already.

[Robby nz]

Law lecturer Vorachet Pakeerat said at a press conference today said that the "unconstitutional ruling" sets the precedence that lawmakers can no longer amend the Constitution without the court's approval.

That is a load of <deleted> Mr Law lecturer.

The court can only come into play if someone files a complaint and if that complaint is frivolous the court will dump the complaint.

In this case what was contentious was not that the senators should all be elected.

The Dems agree that they should.

The problem arises with the tacked on bits about friends and family of sitting or ex mp's being able to stand in those elections and that senators can stay in the job forever as opposed to the present 6 yr term.

Had the proposed changes only been to a fully elected senate and clear rules as to how those elections were to take place and who was eligible to stand for senate positions were set down then agreement could (would) have been reached and then the court would not have been involved.

There was also, in this case the other issues of open dishonesty, which, if an agreement had been reached would not have happened.

[Lite Beer]

Ignore 'unconstitutional' ruling, Nitirat lawyers say
The Sunday Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Nitirat Group yesterday warned against anarchy, if some politicians choose to ratify the Constitutional Court's "unconstitutional" ruling on changing the charter.

At the press conference yesterday, law lecturer Worachet Pakeerat urged members of parliament to vote to ignore the ruling on an amendment on the election of senators. Accepting the ruling meant the legislative branch agreed to submit its power to the court and that could lead to the world's first "constitutional state", he alleged.

The law lecturers claim the ruling was unconstitutional because the court had no authority to rule on the case, as charter amendments are not tantamount to efforts to change the democratic regime.

Moreover, the court also committed an unconstitutional process in reviewing the case, by taking into consideration politicians' petitions. Under the Constitution's Article 68, the Attorney General's Office must act as the complainant. The court also failed to find legal reasons to support its ruling that the charter amendment was unconstitutional. This explained why it failed to announce penalties attached with the ruling.

"The court's authority is to ensure that the minority has a stage to equally express its voice. However, this ruling is to suppress the majority voice, which is against the democratic regime. This ruling has no legal bearing. But some politicians seek to use it for their own clauses," Worachet said.

He added that the court has the authority to scrutinise if the legislature correctly uses its power to endorse the Bt2 trillion borrowing bill. However, the charter amendments are the power of the legislature which cannot be breached.

The Nitirat group of lawyers claimed yesterday that if the Constitutional Court's ruling on a charter amendment about the election of senators is upheld, it could pave way for the world's first constitutional state.

Worachet told a press conference that the ruling was "unconstitutional" and set a precedent that lawmakers could no longer amend the Constitution without the court's approval.

"This will affect a democratic regime, which clearly separates the power of the legislative and the judicial branches. Whenever another attempt to amend the charter comes up again, the opposition could seek the court's ruling… Eventually, the court would be the establishment that authorises amendments," he said.

The group alleged that the court's ruling was unconstitutional, because the court had no authority to rule on the case and the court also undertook an unconstitutional process in doing that.

"The Article 68 was drawn up on German experience, allowing the government to seek the constitutional court's endorsement to rip off the rights of a person, if it believes an effort has been made to change the regime. In the Thai case, those lawmakers are allowed by law to amend the charter. The court can't just assume the power to tell what the lawmakers can or can't do," Worachet said.

The Nitirat group also said that under Thai protocol, the Attorney General's Office would use its power to seek the court's approval. However, in this case, the court took into consideration petitions filed directly to the court by politicians. Moreover, this ruling involved the authority of lawmakers.

The court also failed to find legal reasons to support its ruling that the charter amendment was unconstitutional.

Worachet said parliamentarians should seek a vote to ignore the court's ruling, which he claimed was non-binding in nature as even the court did not state penalties.

He warned that while the ruling was non-binding, it had been used by political groups to support their causes. If the situation continued, there will be no rule of law in Thai society and "it would be difficult to cure or restore the situation in the future".

-- The Nation 2013-11-24

[Robby nz]

He warned that while the ruling was non-binding, it had been used by political groups to support their causes. If the situation continued, there will be no rule of law in Thai society and "it would be difficult to cure or restore the situation in the future".

Surely the esteemed lawyer has that wrong.

It has already been stated many times that the constitution courts verdict is binding on all parties.

If he and his group continue to defy the court then they must be the ones who are ignoring the law.

[Thai at Heart]

Moreover, the court also committed an unconstitutional process in reviewing the case, by taking into consideration politicians' petitions. Under the Constitution's Article 68, the Attorney General's Office must act as the complainant. The court also failed to find legal reasons to support its ruling that the charter amendment was unconstitutional. This explained why it failed to announce penalties attached with the ruling.

Unfortunately, as bad as Thaksin is, this is I reckon the case, and the CC has intervened beyond its remit. I just can' t believe which numpties wrote it this way when the AG is a political appointee.

Anyway, it's moot because they didn't even hold the debate properly and they had irregularities in the voting, which is amazing considering all they had to do was get all their MP's there present and correct and vote, and then it wouldn't be an issue.

[Tatsujin]

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

It is entirely too easy to change/manipulate the Thai Constitution compared to an advanced Democracy as the U.S. is. I'm not saying the Nitirat Group is stupid but they are ignorant of the World outside of Thailand and their past statements tell me they are pro-Thaksin.

But it is the original writers who screwed this up.

Went leave such huge loopholes to enable it to be changed?

The loopholes are there in EVERY SINGLE LAW in Thailand to give those with the money and power the wriggle room to use them as they choose. The first step to a more stable Government would be to review and close these loopholes. It's not difficult. And a referendum isn't hard to organise either.

[MaiChai]

Nitirat group are hardly impartial if my memory serves me right. They were clearly backing PT arguments.

[ChrisY1]

With all the talk of the CC being legitimate or not.....to any observer of this fiasco, there do not appear to be any persons or body that has an understanding of the country' constitution.....they're a bunch of useless pr*&^s to me!

[Baerboxer]

With all the talk of the CC being legitimate or not.....to any observer of this fiasco, there do not appear to be any persons or body that has an understanding of the country' constitution.....they're a bunch of useless pr*&^s to me!

You would think something as important would be very clear wouldn't you. As always, we have different groups of lawyers stating the opposite. The 2007 Constitution attempted to clarify and close some of the loopholes and vagueness of the 1997 version. The people who actually worked on that maybe a good start in gaining an understanding from.

The Constitutional Court are there to protect the constitution in accordance with the law. PTP have screwed up their handling of this bill through parliament which has led to a complaint filed with the court being judged upon. The government should learn that their continued sloppy approach to due process and procedure causes these problems. Attention to detail and not trying to cheat the way through should be easy given the majority in the HOR and influence in Senate. But, no, they can't be bothered to do it properly, and don't want anyone telling them they can't do as they please.

This group of lawyers are academics expressing their view on how to interpret what's written. The Judges actually work daily on interpreting what's written and may therefore be in a much better position to make a judgement than a group of university lecturers.

[pookiki]

I'm happy to see that one group got the legal analysis 'spot on' on this issue. [without the anti-Thaksin bias!] For those who have posted about the procedural matters, please remember that the Constitutional Court ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional irrespective of the procedural issues. For those of you in 'advanced' democracies, can you point to a single issue where a Supreme Court has ruled that a constitutional amendment passed by the legislative branch was unconstitutional? Especially when the appeal was made directly by members of the legislative branch?

[khunken]

This is a load of crap from the biased Nitirat group whose logic seems to be out of the Kittirat book. A mixture of lies and lack of ability to think.

All the red shirt groups voice their disapproval of the CC's judgement and say that the CC is not 'legally' entitled to examine constitutional changes. I've yet to see what function the CC has according to them. Do they believe in any checks and balances to ensure that parliament governs for the country and not just themselves or their ruling clan?

As for having to petition via the AG, the CC have said that that only applies in the case of a petition to disband a political party. The AG is government appointed so is not an unbiased party (as we've seen in some recent decisions).

In most countries the method of amending the constitution is made very difficult to prevent constant changes. It is far too easy here and the lack of any check (rubber stamped by the senate) before the CC agreed to examine it is hardly in keeping with democratic norms. In addition the Thai people should have been consulted via a referendum.

[wedders]

Nitirat group are hardly impartial if my memory serves me right. They were clearly backing PT arguments.

Backing arguments from a particular source does not necrssarily indicate partiality. It can also mean that the arguments were simply deemed to be stronger in the cases in point, conclusions arrived at in an entirely balanced and reasoned manner.

I'm making a point of logic here, not a political one.

[Thai at Heart]

This is a load of crap from the biased Nitirat group whose logic seems to be out of the Kittirat book. A mixture of lies and lack of ability to think.

All the red shirt groups voice their disapproval of the CC's judgement and say that the CC is not 'legally' entitled to examine constitutional changes. I've yet to see what function the CC has according to them. Do they believe in any checks and balances to ensure that parliament governs for the country and not just themselves or their ruling clan?

As for having to petition via the AG, the CC have said that that only applies in the case of a petition to disband a political party. The AG is government appointed so is not an unbiased party (as we've seen in some recent decisions).

In most countries the method of amending the constitution is made very difficult to prevent constant changes. It is far too easy here and the lack of any check (rubber stamped by the senate) before the CC agreed to examine it is hardly in keeping with democratic norms. In addition the Thai people should have been consulted via a referendum.

Well, the cc interpreted that passage of the constitution that way. Now anyone can petition the cc anytime.

[MaiChai]

Nitirat group are hardly impartial if my memory serves me right. They were clearly backing PT arguments.

Backing arguments from a particular source does not necrssarily indicate partiality. It can also mean that the arguments were simply deemed to be stronger in the cases in point, conclusions arrived at in an entirely balanced and reasoned manner.

I'm making a point of logic here, not a political one.

Check back at their previous statements; its pretty clear to me. Also the red background on their logo gives it away (can you read Thai?).

Thailand needs to move away from paid lobbying or backing your favourite group/gang and instead people thinking for themselves and going with the group they believe is right and will do the right thing for the greater good of the country. Thats what democracy is.

[wedders]

Absolutely. It's just that your assertion needed further clarification, otherwise it comes across as just another of the polarised, unsubstantiated views that flood this forum particularly when it comes to politics.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Artisi]

A constitutional state?

The way Thailand is carrying on it will be lucky if it doesn't end up as a failed state.

Probably better a constitutional state than renaming Thailand to Nakhong Thaksin or the The Most Royal Presidential Republic of Shinawatra.

[indyuk]

Aside from anything else, i would suggest that if the government of the day wants to go ahead and reform the constitution, they do so by making sure that all voting procedures and debating are carried out correctly. I mean honestly, when the Court can point out quite obviously that MP's have been using multiple voting cards, it shows that the system is completely sick.

So before they moan about a constitutional state, I suggest they admit that the entire process wasn't carried out in accordance with the expected rules. Once that is done, then they can moan about the conduct of the court, and about how the government can or cannot go about changing the constitution.

No problem the law makers can, and should, change the voting rules to be applied to any legislation, or preferably to a voting requirement that requires all members to be present in the house when voting on any Bill, Count or Issue.

[kirk0233]

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but bungled it due to arrogance, greed and the failed leadership of a sociopath and his shopaholic sister. PT should be ashamed and should be shamed.

[gerry1011]

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but bungled it due to arrogance, greed and the failed leadership of a sociopath and his shopaholic sister. PT should be ashamed and should be shamed.

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but it bungled due to arrogance and frustration of the Dems, greed and apetite for power of a sociopath Suthep and his mediaholic little brother Abhisit. The Dems should be ashamed and should be shamed for bringing back the chaos that was started by the yellows in 2006.

If everybody goes on with these kinds of useless comments there is no hope to improve the situation

[bigbamboo]

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but bungled it due to arrogance, greed and the failed leadership of a sociopath and his shopaholic sister. PT should be ashamed and should be shamed.

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but it bungled due to arrogance and frustration of the Dems, greed and apetite for power of a sociopath Suthep and his mediaholic little brother Abhisit. The Dems should be ashamed and should be shamed for bringing back the chaos that was started by the yellows in 2006.

If everybody goes on with these kinds of useless comments there is no hope to improve the situation

Actually the chance was there back in the TRT days. If KT had played the white man he would probably be enjoying his third term as Thailand's PM by now but if ifs and ands were pots and pans.........

[kirk0233]

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but bungled it due to arrogance, greed and the failed leadership of a sociopath and his shopaholic sister. PT should be ashamed and should be shamed.

PT had a remarkable chance to move Thailand from a Thai democarcy to a true democracy, but it bungled due to arrogance and frustration of the Dems, greed and apetite for power of a sociopath Suthep and his mediaholic little brother Abhisit. The Dems should be ashamed and should be shamed for bringing back the chaos that was started by the yellows in 2006.

If everybody goes on with these kinds of useless comments there is no hope to improve the situation

What has PT done to move Thailand to a true democracy? Has it attempted to revoke lese majeste or provide for elections of governors outside Bangkok? I have only observed continual pilfering of state treasury and public lands and an attempt to hijack the senate with relatives. Back up your criticism with some facts.

[rubl]

The interesting thinfg is that we seem to have a classical case of "This is not what I want, therefore this is wrong".

The reasoning seems to completely forgo the actual ruling, just 'they shouldn't', they can't', 'they're not allowed', ...