Ruling will be sought on legal status of Thai govt

[webfact]

POLITICS
Ruling will be sought on legal status of govt
THE NATION

Court to be asked if caretaker government still has power after House failed to meet within 30 days of February 2 election

BANGKOK: -- WITH THE 30-DAY constitutional deadline for a new House of Representatives to convene after a general election today, a legal question has arisen as to whether the caretaker government can still be considered to be legally functioning.

With the prospect of a possible political vacuum, the opposition Democrat Party plans to seek an interpretation of the law and the caretaker government's status, said the head of the Democrats' legal team, Wirat Kalayasiri.

He said yesterday that the party was considering two moves. First, it would start a campaign to impeach the Yingluck Shinawatra administration by trying to win support from at least 20,000 eligible voters for the process of impeaching the government for allegedly violating the Constitution.

The Democrats would also petition the Constitutional Court to rule whether the government's caretaker status ceased after the deadline expired, and also whether it violated Article 68 of the charter for allegedly gaining power unconstitutionally - by "overstaying" in power. The party's legal team will meet later this week to discuss what to do.

A group of 40 senators plans a similar legal move with the court, according to a source.Article 127 of the charter states: "The National Assembly shall, within 30 days as from the date of the election of members of the House of Representatives, be summoned for the first sitting." However, no clause was added about what action may be taken when the deadline is not met.

The caretaker government has limited power, as it is prohibited by law from doing things that result in commitments for its successor. For example, it is unable to borrow money to pay farmers who sold rice to the price-pledging scheme.

The election on February 2 failed to fill the 500 seats in the Parliament, as there were no election candidates in 28 constituencies. According to the Constitution, at least 95 per cent of the House of Representatives, or 475 seats, must be filled before it can convene its first session after any general election.

Political activist Thaikorn Polsuwan recently petitioned the Constitutional Court for a ruling on whether the Yingluck government still has status as an administration if the House does not have a quorum - in this case 475 MPs - to convene a session to elect a new prime minister within 30 days of the election.

Caretaker Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is also in charge of the government's Centre for Maintaining Law and Order, said yesterday he believed that Yingluck could remain in office after the 30-day deadline had passed. He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

Some legal experts believe expiry of the 30-day deadline means Yingluck can no longer keep her post as caretaker PM.

Earlier, the Constitutional Court rejected a petition by the Democrats seeking a ruling on whether the February 2 election was valid and, if not, whether the ruling Pheu Thai Party should be dissolved.

In a related development, the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee will step up its movement and convene members to draft a blueprint for reform in Thailand, PDRC leader Satit Wongnongtaey announced yesterday.

Satit said the convention would be held in the next few days. Representatives from all walks of life would be invited to join and propose the ideas.

He said the relocation of rally sites to Lumpini Park was seen as an upgrade of the campaign, while addresses onstage and activities would go on around the clock.


-- The Nation 2014-03-04

[Seastallion]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

[JRSoul]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

Can they still be Ministers from their prison cell?

[notmyself]

Slide like a shadow out of the back door Poo and don't forget to leave your keys on the table just inside the front door.

[Dr Bruce]

The artical says that a group of 40 senators will start a court case. Is this the same group which is often refered to as The Group Of 40? Are there any Elected Senators at the moment?

[Mister Fixit]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

And equally unfortunately, other Articles say different ...

[TheClog]

What a bunch of winging losers this dem crowd are.

It would be best all round if the Court brought forward their dissolution case and put them down.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What a bunch of winging losers this dem crowd are.

It would be best all round if the Court brought forward their dissolution case and put them down.

Do you live in Dubai top dog

[kikoman]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

[Cricketnut]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[kimamey]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

That does sound reasonable and it's good to see him say something sensible for a change but of course there are probably other articles that contradict that. I don't think accusing the government of unconstitutionally gaining power through this is fair although you do have to wonder at the typical lack of foresight in not dealing with this earlier and just assuming something would turn up.

It's also not clear what would happen if any of the ministers were charged with any offence but it would likely take a long time to come to court I suppose.

Edited March 4, 2014 by kimamey

[smovi57]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

Maybe you need a constitutional!

[kimamey]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If they were to get power then they must use it to tackle corruption and bring in fair reforms including to the courts and independent bodies. Something the PTP seem not to have bothered with.

Edited March 4, 2014 by kimamey

[rebelplatoon]

They would not join elections because of the division of constituencies tailor made by Phue Thaksin party. Popular vote would have them win it right now. Talks are what is needed. A change in the way elections are held. And a temporary government with a pm that is neutral to put things back in order.

[focus27]

We're finally here! Let's see which way the Constitutional Court swings.

It looks as if the National Assembly may convene without the House of Representatives. The President and Vice-president of the National Assembly can both be senators - that seemingly minor protocol is clear from section 89.

The real sticking point is the requirement that Ministers must be members of the House of Reps - again, in a constitution written in quicksand, this is clear.

The National Assembly (in effect just the Senate) can request a royal decree to select a new government (section 132(2) seems to allow this) but even the constitution says that such a decree cannot be against the law; in this case, that Ministers be MPs.

There could be a way out of this. An MP takes office on the day of the election. Whether the House is in session or not does not stop an MP being an MP. Sure, the MPs cannot vote on anything as the House is not in session. So the Senate could create a 'unity government' from those constituency MPs that won their seats on 2nd Feb.

This would probably require that an extraordinary session of the National Assembly is convoked (sections 128 and 129) so that those MPs elected can be sworn in. As this would not be an ordinary session, and the constitution says nothing about what happens in a House with fewer than 95% of MPs, such an extraordinary session could still be constitutional and break the deadlock without an obvious coup.

Let's see what the Thais do in this situation!

Oh yeah... no Dems were elected, were they?!

[bTW as an aside, Italy hasn't had an elected government in some three years - or so my uncle tells me - so it isn't just in Thailand that democracy is broken. However, Italy has a President who can select yet another 'disunity government'.]

[JRSoul]

We're finally here! Let's see which way the Constitutional Court swings.

It looks as if the National Assembly may convene without the House of Representatives. The President and Vice-president of the National Assembly can both be senators - that seemingly minor protocol is clear from section 89.

The real sticking point is the requirement that Ministers must be members of the House of Reps - again, in a constitution written in quicksand, this is clear.

The National Assembly (in effect just the Senate) can request a royal decree to select a new government (section 132(2) seems to allow this) but even the constitution says that such a decree cannot be against the law; in this case, that Ministers be MPs.

There could be a way out of this. An MP takes office on the day of the election. Whether the House is in session or not does not stop an MP being an MP. Sure, the MPs cannot vote on anything as the House is not in session. So the Senate could create a 'unity government' from those constituency MPs that won their seats on 2nd Feb.

This would probably require that an extraordinary session of the National Assembly is convoked (sections 128 and 129) so that those MPs elected can be sworn in. As this would not be an ordinary session, and the constitution says nothing about what happens in a House with fewer than 95% of MPs, such an extraordinary session could still be constitutional and break the deadlock without an obvious coup.

Let's see what the Thais do in this situation!

Oh yeah... no Dems were elected, were they?!

[bTW as an aside, Italy hasn't had an elected government in some three years - or so my uncle tells me - so it isn't just in Thailand that democracy is broken. However, Italy has a President who can select yet another 'disunity government'.]

"Ministers must be members of the House of Reps" AFAIK this wrong. Didn't Thaksin insist that his party list MPs who became Ministers resign from the house so that more MPs could be appointed?

[Fryslan boppe]

"...a legal question has arisen as to whether the caretaker government can still be considered to be legally functioning"

No it hasn't.

Perhaps technically, but only the unelectables trying to nullify an election is the issue.

Trying to foment and hide behind a legal issue they can foster, does not obfuscate the motives here. As opposed to the concern about a pressing legal issue that has all-of-a-sudden "arisen"

Other than for those who are agenized in this direction of course.

[petedk]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

You mean Yingluck has always adhered to constitution when it suited her. Other times she didn't give a dam about the constitution.

[FangFerang]

He said the relocation of rally sites to Lumpini Park was seen as an upgrade of the campaign...

Yeah. Right.

[focus27]

We're finally here! Let's see which way the Constitutional Court swings.

It looks as if the National Assembly may convene without the House of Representatives. The President and Vice-president of the National Assembly can both be senators - that seemingly minor protocol is clear from section 89.

The real sticking point is the requirement that Ministers must be members of the House of Reps - again, in a constitution written in quicksand, this is clear.

The National Assembly (in effect just the Senate) can request a royal decree to select a new government (section 132(2) seems to allow this) but even the constitution says that such a decree cannot be against the law; in this case, that Ministers be MPs.

There could be a way out of this. An MP takes office on the day of the election. Whether the House is in session or not does not stop an MP being an MP. Sure, the MPs cannot vote on anything as the House is not in session. So the Senate could create a 'unity government' from those constituency MPs that won their seats on 2nd Feb.

This would probably require that an extraordinary session of the National Assembly is convoked (sections 128 and 129) so that those MPs elected can be sworn in. As this would not be an ordinary session, and the constitution says nothing about what happens in a House with fewer than 95% of MPs, such an extraordinary session could still be constitutional and break the deadlock without an obvious coup.

Let's see what the Thais do in this situation!

Oh yeah... no Dems were elected, were they?!

[bTW as an aside, Italy hasn't had an elected government in some three years - or so my uncle tells me - so it isn't just in Thailand that democracy is broken. However, Italy has a President who can select yet another 'disunity government'.]

"Ministers must be members of the House of Reps" AFAIK this wrong. Didn't Thaksin insist that his party list MPs who became Ministers resign from the house so that more MPs could be appointed?

Serves me right for not double checking everything!! Yes, only the Prime Minister has to be a member of the House of Representatives. Looking at it again, a Minister could be anybody appointed by Royal Decree; so long as they are not a senator or recent senator.

This makes the selection of an interim government easier, but if it is done with any attempt towards a unity government there is still the problem of an elected PM.

Of course, the current caretaker government could be left to rot in office, but I suspect most Thais don't want the whole country to rot with them.

[JesseFrank]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

Shouldn't this post, among the majority of your other posts, be moved to the jokes section ?

Always adhered to the constitution

You probably forget already that it was only 4 months ago that PT ( and I think that must include Yingluck) announced that they didn't recognise the legality of the constitutional judges.

Edited March 4, 2014 by JesseFrank

[ginjag]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

Shouldn't this post, among the majority of your other posts, be moved to the jokes section ?

Always adhered to the constitution

You probably forget already that it was only 4 months ago that PT ( and I think that must include Yingluck) announced that they didn't recognise the legality of the constitutional judges.

Kikoman has a loss of memory and does not want to regain it.

For all the undemocratic governing that he should be aware of, all the apologists have to say is---to be democratic you have to have elections.

Better you vote for Thai bus drivers to run the country, not this lot.

[Crushdepth]

Good luck passing the next budget if this doesn't get sorted out soon.

[animatic]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

...until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office...

Reading it more clearly,

this means they stay until someone is assigned to replace them.

It does NOT say elected or indefinitely seated till they pull off a parliamentary elected quorum.

APPOINTED, a very clear distinction. ;

Do your job as assigned constitutionally, but if you 'time out', all bets are off.

Yingluck has just timed out.

So in abeyance of a new parliament and in consideration of an expired caretaker,

the 'Head Of State', may be required to appoint a new Council Of Ministers.

This may or may not include a lame duck standing caretaker PM.

Nothing says it can not be the same expired council appointed,

but nothing says it must be either. Hence the call for a ruling

Edited March 4, 2014 by animatic

[PepperMe]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

I believe the constitutional court has the power to appoint the senate to vote in an interim government.

Chalerm is the person you quoted and we all know the guy is full of shit.

He has quotes article 181 which is the same article that the government are in total violation of (see below).

Article 181.

The outgoing Council of

Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out

duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers

takes office but, in the case

of the vacation of office

under Article 180 (2),

Article 180.

Ministers vacate office

en masse

upon:

(1)

the termination of ministership of the

Prime Minister under Article 182;

(2)

the expiration of the term or the

dissolution of the House of Representatives;

(3) the resignation of the Council of Ministers.

In the case where the ministership of the

Prime Minister terminates under Article 182 (1), (2),

(3), (4), (5), (7), or (8

), the procedure under Article

172 and Article 173 shall apply

mutatis mutandis

.

So there you have it, their term has definitely expired and they have definitely dissolved the house of representatives.

So Chalerm conveniently omitted the important bit at the end of article 181 that leads you to the exception of article 180.

Nice try Chalerm, but we are little sharper than you hoped for.

[aussieinthailand]

I guess I must have missed something in the tangled web of Thai politics,

As far as I know, Mark and Dem MP's resigned and did not vote, Mark also claiming on a news interview he did not vote, I thought that if you did not vote then you can not be a sitting MP, So did Mark vote or did he lie, and did his MP's vote or did they lie? The other thing is why oh why was not a retired judge appointed as caretaker PM after the 30 day limit? But it also seems that the law says the current government must stay and continue working until the new government takes over,

[PepperMe]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Rubbish.... You know the Dems would piss any election if they participated.

They would have won the last one by a mile and some.

PTP 8 million votes? I bet that has almost halved since Feb 2nd.

The Dems abstained out of principle, but if they have to come in as interim government until a new election can be set up, then that will not exactly be a case of stealing government will it?

They would probably set up the next election to remove populism and vote buying... which is true democratic election standards, not the old election standards where vote buying and populism was acceptable.

We will see who wins the next proper election because the Feb 2nd one has been a failure, even without the disruptions by PCAD.... If they ever bother to complete them, it will show a massive NO MANDATE for the winners, and parliament will never be able to get a quorum.

[ginjag]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Rubbish.... You know the Dems would piss any election if they participated.

They would have won the last one by a mile and some.

PTP 8 million votes? I bet that has almost halved since Feb 2nd.

The Dems abstained out of principle, but if they have to come in as interim government until a new election can be set up, then that will not exactly be a case of stealing government will it?

They would probably set up the next election to remove populism and vote buying... which is true democratic election standards, not the old election standards where vote buying and populism was acceptable.

We will see who wins the next proper election because the Feb 2nd one has been a failure, even without the disruptions by PCAD.... If they ever bother to complete them, it will show a massive NO MANDATE for the winners, and parliament will never be able to get a quorum.

Keep following the money, the courts will decide who is available for office.

If the PTP and the Shins are removed for any violations (looks a good chance) where is the opposition to the Dems coming from.

If you try to cook the books and are found out, it is YOUR problem, no one else is to blame. ( as some posters seem to think).

[Seastallion]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

And equally unfortunately, other Articles say different ...

They don't "say different", they just say there are other considerations, but when it all boils down to it, I would guess Article 181 trumps all the others. And to be fair, Article 181 should be there, and should be considered to over-ride minor technicalities such as "they didn't sit by the due date". As much as I despise PT, there HAS to be someone at the helm. Can you imagine the rampant corruption escalating and money grabbing if there was a power vacuum? People would be plundering their own offices, higher-up people would be signing cheques left right and centre, it would be utter chaos.

[ikke]

What a bunch of winging losers this dem crowd are.

It would be best all round if the Court brought forward their dissolution case and put them down.

Agree 100%, but also let them pay all damage and economic loss they are responsible for !!