Constitutional Court refuses to rule on legality of February 2 election

[webfact]

Court refuses to rule on legality of election
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a request to rule on the legality of the February 2 election.

The request was put forward by former Democrat MP Wirat Kalayasiri last week. He cited Article 68 of the Constitution and also called for dissolution of the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the exclusion of its executives from politics for five years.

The court's decision was announced before it held a hearing on a petition by the Democrat Party on the legality of the Bt2-trillion borrowing bill that the government pushed through Parliament last year to fund its mega-infrastructure programme.

The court is to summon five expert witnesses to testify before it decides whether to accept to make a ruling on the case. They include former Finance ministers Thanong Bidaya and Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala.


-- The Nation 2014-02-12

[Thait Spot]

Hilarious

Is this an election?

Only if that is a Prime Minister

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Costas2008]

The court refused to rule...........but the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election was a farce.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Costas2008

[Basil B]

I can not see how this has any thing to do with the legitimacy of the election, but more to do with the legitimacy of serving/former ministers of government, and an attempt to disqualify them from public office.

I can not see this voiding the general election, but if any person disqualified has been elected, it would require by-elections.

And the court refused to rule until they have heard from expert witnesses.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Basil B

[ikurauni]

Everything is becoming twisted. Thanks for the entertainment. Amazing Thailand, indeed.

[Scamper]

The petition was filed under Article 68, which clearly the Constitutional Court felt wasn't strong enough a case. The petition ought to have been filed under Article 108 - as that is the one that talks about an election's fixed date within the 45 to 60 day parameter. There will doubtless by a filing of a petition to the Constitutional Court under the directive of Article 108. Article 7 is set to be activated on April 1 when the parliament that failed to achieve a quorum in 30 days, will have failed to nominate a prime minister in the following 30 days. On April 1 a political vacuum will have officially taken place. Article 7 addresses the possibility of a political vacuum.The administration is at that point stripped of its caretaker status. It will officially no longer be in power. Article 7 concerns the appointing of a new prime minister, under a specific set of provisions.

[96tehtarp]

They would have ruled on it if there was any way they could legally have done so.

[chainarong]

Not often you have half the country voting , with the other half having no candidates, there would be no previous experience of this , it is a constitutional nightmare, the rule in effect should be election null and void, as the country should all go to the polls at the same time and end at the same time , excluding absent and postal voting.

Edited February 12, 2014 by chainarong

[rogerdee123]

Oh my ... more complications for the "black or white" international media.

[kikoman]

Not often you have half the country voting , with the other half having no candidates, there would be no previous experience of this , it is a constitutional nightmare, the rule in effect should be election null and void, as the country should all go to the polls at the same time and end at the same time , excluding absent and postal voting.

The election was called like any other election,

All had the same right to vote, those that did not choose to vote, (made a personal decision not to vote) which is within the rights of all people in a democratic society.

The PDRC violated the law when it blocked voter from voting on election day, those people get to vote in a reschedule election.

The Democrat party made a conscious decision to boycott the election, and actively joined the protest, that was lead by (9) elected in 2011 members of the Democrat party.

Historically elections always are held on 3 different days in Thailand, Re: (1) The early voting (2) national election (3) Bye election, while the constitution considered that as voting on the same day, as was done in the 2011 election!

Nothing unconstitutional about how the election was held

Those that made a conscious choice not to vote or run for office should have no right to complain.

Cheers

Edited February 12, 2014 by kikoman

[Rich teacher]

The court refused to rule...........but the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election was a farce.

the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election court is a farce.

[skills32]

I can not see how this has any thing to do with the legitimacy of the election, but more to do with the legitimacy of serving/former ministers of government, and an attempt to disqualify them from public office.

I can not see this voiding the general election, but if any person disqualified has been elected, it would require by-elections.

And the court refused to rule until they have heard from expert witnesses.

That refers to the mega loan.

[max72]

The court refused to rule...........but the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election was a farce.

speak for yourself. The majority has decided yes to democracy and no to your corrupted wanna-be dictator hero Suthep

[Red Snake]

I can see Abhisit getting nervous now. He was so sure the court would find the election unconstitutional.

[webfact]

Thai opposition loses bid to annul election

BANGKOK, February 12, 2014 (AFP) - Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a request by the country's main opposition party to annul a controversial election disrupted by anti-government protests.

The court said in a statement that it had declined to consider the petition by a Democrat Party lawyer to nullify the February 2 vote because there were insufficient grounds.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra called the election in an attempt to assuage opposition protesters who have staged more than three months of mass street protests seeking her resignation.

The Democrats boycotted the vote, saying it would not end a political crisis stretching back to a military coup in 2006 that ousted Yingluck's elder brother Thaksin Shinawatra as premier.

The protesters want Yingluck to stand down to make way for an unelected "People's Council" to enact reforms to tackle corruption and alleged vote buying before new polls are held.

Demonstrators prevented 10,000 polling stations from opening in this month's vote, affecting several million people, mainly in opposition strongholds in Bangkok and the south.

The opposition's legal challenge was based on the failure to hold the entire election on the same day.

Yingluck's opponents say her government is controlled by Thaksin, who fled Thailand in 2008 to avoid going to jail for a corruption conviction and now lives in Dubai.

Pro-Thaksin parties have won every election for more than a decade, most recently in 2011 under Yingluck, helped by strong support in the northern half of the kingdom.

The Election Commission has said the results of this month's election will not be announced until polls have been held in all constituencies.

Yingluck will remain in a caretaker role with limited power over policy until there is a quorum of 95 percent of the 500 seats in the lower house of parliament to enable the appointment of a new government.

The Election Commission on Tuesday set a date of April 27 for election re-runs in constituencies where voting was disrupted by protesters.

But there is still no decision on what to do about 28 constituencies that have no candidates because demonstrators blocked the registration process.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-02-12

[Thait Spot]

They would have ruled on it if there was any way they could legally have done so.

You prefer your judges to rule illegally?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ShannonT]

Thai opposition loses bid to annul election

BANGKOK, February 12, 2014 (AFP) - Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a request by the country's main opposition party to annul a controversial election disrupted by anti-government protests.

The court said in a statement that it had declined to consider the petition by a Democrat Party lawyer to nullify the February 2 vote because there were insufficient grounds.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra called the election in an attempt to assuage opposition protesters who have staged more than three months of mass street protests seeking her resignation.

The Democrats boycotted the vote, saying it would not end a political crisis stretching back to a military coup in 2006 that ousted Yingluck's elder brother Thaksin Shinawatra as premier.

The protesters want Yingluck to stand down to make way for an unelected "People's Council" to enact reforms to tackle corruption and alleged vote buying before new polls are held.

Demonstrators prevented 10,000 polling stations from opening in this month's vote, affecting several million people, mainly in opposition strongholds in Bangkok and the south.

The opposition's legal challenge was based on the failure to hold the entire election on the same day.

Yingluck's opponents say her government is controlled by Thaksin, who fled Thailand in 2008 to avoid going to jail for a corruption conviction and now lives in Dubai.

Pro-Thaksin parties have won every election for more than a decade, most recently in 2011 under Yingluck, helped by strong support in the northern half of the kingdom.

The Election Commission has said the results of this month's election will not be announced until polls have been held in all constituencies.

Yingluck will remain in a caretaker role with limited power over policy until there is a quorum of 95 percent of the 500 seats in the lower house of parliament to enable the appointment of a new government.

The Election Commission on Tuesday set a date of April 27 for election re-runs in constituencies where voting was disrupted by protesters.

But there is still no decision on what to do about 28 constituencies that have no candidates because demonstrators blocked the registration process.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-02-12

Sorry Abhisit, looks like you lost. On top of that, because you didn't participate in the elections, you will have no parliamentary immunity during your murder trial.

[NCFC]

The petition was filed under Article 68, which clearly the Constitutional Court felt wasn't strong enough a case. The petition ought to have been filed under Article 108 - as that is the one that talks about an election's fixed date within the 45 to 60 day parameter. There will doubtless by a filing of a petition to the Constitutional Court under the directive of Article 108. Article 7 is set to be activated on April 1 when the parliament that failed to achieve a quorum in 30 days, will have failed to nominate a prime minister in the following 30 days. On April 1 a political vacuum will have officially taken place. Article 7 addresses the possibility of a political vacuum.The administration is at that point stripped of its caretaker status. It will officially no longer be in power. Article 7 concerns the appointing of a new prime minister, under a specific set of provisions.

Yes ever since the election you have been banging on in post after post that the election will be anulled under article 108. Yet your yellow friends didn't think that section merited a court challenge at all, so you ought to admit you were wrong. And there won't be any filing under 108 because they will look more ridiculous than they already are. They went for article 68 and the CC said it wasn't interested.

Now tell us who you think will be appointed PM on April 1st if article 7 is invoked.

[pookiki]

I wonder if Suthep and/or the Democrats will refuse to accept this decision??

[Thait Spot]

Thai opposition loses bid to annul election

BANGKOK, February 12, 2014 (AFP) - Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a request by the country's main opposition party to annul a controversial election disrupted by anti-government protests.

The court said in a statement that it had declined to consider the petition by a Democrat Party lawyer to nullify the February 2 vote because there were insufficient grounds.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra called the election in an attempt to assuage opposition protesters who have staged more than three months of mass street protests seeking her resignation.

The Democrats boycotted the vote, saying it would not end a political crisis stretching back to a military coup in 2006 that ousted Yingluck's elder brother Thaksin Shinawatra as premier.

The protesters want Yingluck to stand down to make way for an unelected "People's Council" to enact reforms to tackle corruption and alleged vote buying before new polls are held.

Demonstrators prevented 10,000 polling stations from opening in this month's vote, affecting several million people, mainly in opposition strongholds in Bangkok and the south.

The opposition's legal challenge was based on the failure to hold the entire election on the same day.

Yingluck's opponents say her government is controlled by Thaksin, who fled Thailand in 2008 to avoid going to jail for a corruption conviction and now lives in Dubai.

Pro-Thaksin parties have won every election for more than a decade, most recently in 2011 under Yingluck, helped by strong support in the northern half of the kingdom.

The Election Commission has said the results of this month's election will not be announced until polls have been held in all constituencies.

Yingluck will remain in a caretaker role with limited power over policy until there is a quorum of 95 percent of the 500 seats in the lower house of parliament to enable the appointment of a new government.

The Election Commission on Tuesday set a date of April 27 for election re-runs in constituencies where voting was disrupted by protesters.

But there is still no decision on what to do about 28 constituencies that have no candidates because demonstrators blocked the registration process.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-02-12

Sorry Abhisit, looks like you lost. On top of that, because you didn't participate in the elections, you will have no parliamentary immunity during your murder trial.

1. I thought you said this court was biased.

2. It wasn't Abhisit that raised this.

3. Stay on topic. Its very boring when every thread on every day is polluted with the same boring rhetoric

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Old Man River]

The petition was filed under Article 68, which clearly the Constitutional Court felt wasn't strong enough a case. The petition ought to have been filed under Article 108 - as that is the one that talks about an election's fixed date within the 45 to 60 day parameter. There will doubtless by a filing of a petition to the Constitutional Court under the directive of Article 108. Article 7 is set to be activated on April 1 when the parliament that failed to achieve a quorum in 30 days, will have failed to nominate a prime minister in the following 30 days. On April 1 a political vacuum will have officially taken place. Article 7 addresses the possibility of a political vacuum.The administration is at that point stripped of its caretaker status. It will officially no longer be in power. Article 7 concerns the appointing of a new prime minister, under a specific set of provisions.

Yes ever since the election you have been banging on in post after post that the election will be anulled under article 108. Yet your yellow friends didn't think that section merited a court challenge at all, so you ought to admit you were wrong. And there won't be any filing under 108 because they will look more ridiculous than they already are. They went for article 68 and the CC said it wasn't interested.

Now tell us who you think will be appointed PM on April 1st if article 7 is invoked.

The PM is elected by a majority of the House, not appointed as you have written. In order for the House to do this, there has to be at least 475 elected MP's on April 1st. There won't be. That is the vacuum that Scamper is discussing.

From a legal standpoint, let's see how this plays out

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[ShannonT]

2. It wasn't Abhisit that raised this.

Really? Then who did? Abhisit is the leader and chairman of the Democrat party. You think a Democrat party lawyer can file a lawsuit in the name of the Democrat party without the leader approving it?

[Gweiloman]

I think there is more to this than meets the eye.

It is interesting to me that the CC refuses to rule on the legality as opposed to ruling the elections constitutional and therefore valid. Could it be some sort of a devious way to prevent invoking a "double jeopardy" sort of situation? Is the CC telling the Dem's that they should still file an action but not under Article 68?

[fleeing]

The Constitutional Court obviously can't make a judgement on an election that is not yet completed.

The (care)taker government obviously have enough other things to worry about at the moment: unravelling rice scheme, angry farmers, proposed indictment of Yingluk, lacklustre support even in their strongholds. So I can imagine the Constitutional Court thinks it's more prudent to sit back and watch them create even more problems for themselves, rather than throw them a life-line by declaring the elections invalid and letting them try again.

[tingtongteesood]

The court refused to rule...........but the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election was a farce.

the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election court is a farce.

the majority of educated, or non educated, people in Thailand have decided that this election court CARETAKER GOVERNMENT is a farce.

[tingtongteesood]

Sorry Abhisit, looks like you lost. On top of that, because you didn't participate in the elections, you will have no parliamentary immunity during your murder trial.

The battle is far from over. Abisit hasn't lost anything. He doesn't need immunity because he did nothing wrong. We all know the ''murder'' case will be thrown out in time. Yinglack on the other hand has some charges to face, now she has no immunity and it is fast approaching time to face the consequences of her actions. She will be the loser by he end of all this

[whatsupdoc]

I suppose that for the Court to invalidate the election on the basis that is was not held on one day this first has to actually happen. That is, there has to be a second election held (complementing the incomplete first one).

[SOTIRIOS]

....I thought it had already been deemed invalid and illegal....

[moonao]

Sorry Abhisit, looks like you lost. On top of that, because you didn't participate in the elections, you will have no parliamentary immunity during your murder trial.

Exactly. Abhisit and Suthep were banking on a cancelled election. They rolled the dice and lost. 99% of Thailand can't wait to see these corrupt, murderous rats behind bars.

[robertson468]

I can not see how this has any thing to do with the legitimacy of the election, but more to do with the legitimacy of serving/former ministers of government, and an attempt to disqualify them from public office.

I can not see this voiding the general election, but if any person disqualified has been elected, it would require by-elections.

And the court refused to rule until they have heard from expert witnesses.

That refers to the mega loan.

Yes and I can only describe this as "jumble journalism". We start off with one topic and end up with an entirely different one - TIT.