Thai court to rule on election validity

webfact · March 21, 2014

Thai court to rule on election validity

BANGKOK, March 21, 2014 (AFP) - Thailand's Constitutional Court is expected to rule Friday on a new legal bid to nullify a February election disrupted by opposition protesters.

The case is one of a slew of legal challenges facing the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who has withstood calls to resign despite months of political street protests.

The petition, filed by a Bangkok law lecturer, is based on arguments including that the election was not held on the same day in all constituencies, that candidate registration venues were changed without advance notice, and that a state of emergency prevented a fair vote.

A similar bid, submitted by the opposition on the grounds that the failure to hold the entire election on the same day was an attempt to grab power unconstitutionally, was rejected by the Constitutional Court last month.

Yingluck's government, in a caretaker role following the incomplete February 2 election, faces a series of legal challenges that could lead to her removal from office, including negligence charges linked to a rice subsidy scheme.

Her opponents see the moves as a long-overdue effort to clean up politics, while her supporters reject them as a politically-motivated attempt to oust an elected government.

Yingluck has faced more than four months of street demonstrations seeking to force her from office and install an unelected government to oversee reforms and curb the dominance of her billionaire family.

Twenty-three people have been killed in recent weeks in gun and grenade attacks, mostly targeting protesters.

It is the latest chapter in a political crisis stretching back to a military coup in 2006 that ousted Yingluck's brother Thaksin Shinawatra, a divisive tycoon-turned-politician who lives in Dubai to avoid prison for a corruption conviction.

On Tuesday, Thailand ended a state of emergency in force for almost two months in Bangkok and surrounding areas, reflecting an improvement in security since protesters scaled down their rallies at the start of March.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-03-21

webfact · March 21, 2014

The 9-member panel of the Constitutional Court is attending a meeting today at the Constitutional Court at 9.00 a.m. today to write a conclusion of the judgment of each member of the nine judges before announcing the joint ruling late today.

The court will decide whether the February 2 general election will be nullified as called for by the Office of the Ombudsman which filed the petition to the court.

There was no movement outside the court by both anti and supporters of the government but security was tightened with the police and soldiers deploying in and outside the compound to provide safety for all judges.

One of the 9-member judge Charun Pakdithanakul’s house on Ekamai Soi 30 was attacked by unknown number of attackers by M 79 grenade launchers late last night. But all missed and hit houses of two residents, one of them seriously injured.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/32740/

-- Thai PBS 2014-03-21

oldsailor35 · March 21, 2014

I don't get it ! The elected government calls an election, the opposition knowing that they are going to loose, boycotts the said election and do everything possible to disrupt it. Then the Pro Opposition constitutional court are called on to rule wether or not the election was legal.

This could go on forever if they find in favour of the opposition, setting a future example for any party that cannot win the election.

It appears obvious that the opposition with the help of the Constitutional Panel will get this election found not legal.

tomacht8 · March 21, 2014

Yes elections are good, but before they must do some little reform changes: Simply to rule out, that criminals can run the country.

I.

They must urgently change the law that exclude all persons from the Parliament, from electoral lists and from civil servant posts, which

a have criminal records.

b running free on bail (mandatory suspension until the sentence in the last instance is present)

c were already banned from parliament in the past.

d against are corruption / crime cases opened (mandatory suspension until the sentence in the last instance is present)

No criminals and/or corrupt people in government, parliament or as a civil servant!

II.

Like for all future budgeting processes they make it compulsory for all future governments, that

- the use of money for project proposals are accurately represented in detail and coherent on the last baht.

- the use of money for project proposals is described in detail for all people publicly documented and visible

- Public monthly or quarterly reports on Finance and project progresses.

- Public invitation for project proposals and at least three competitive compare offers.

- Project completion reports including all expenses with receipts.

- a strong supervisory committee composed of members is formed by all parties,

to control the entire investment process without disabilities and time delay restrictions.

The results of the process and progress checks are presented to the parliament.

The members of the supervisory body should rotate so that corruption is impossible or more difficult.

When public funds are used, then the public has the right to see what the representatives of the people plan to do with the money and how it was used.

It must be prevented that a country can be completely plundered by a few unethical people just because they are currently in power.

III.

- Strengthen the independent monitoring bodies.

- Decentralization of authorities, including the police

- Introduction of a independent tax police, which checks all unexplained asset increases.

- Change in the bail system.

- Fast processing of 25.000 open corruption cases

- Abolition of the immunity of Members of Parliament

- Fixed periods for court proceedings. (Indictment to judgment within 90 days)

IV.

- All political parties need to write a manifesto and it must be published.

- Political parties must be accountable to report on their financial (accounting, sources of funds, use of funds)

h90 · March 21, 2014

yes you don't get it.....

The with a lot vote buying elected government tried to make an amnesty law that cancels 25.000 lawsuits, mostly corruption cases. Which caused huge demonstrations. Than the government tried a tricky snap-election where the opposition doesn't even has a chance to promote their cause as the government tugs don't allow them to go into red areas. Government controls more or less all free TV stations and use them for propaganda. The government has the Election Commission in their pocket to ensure there won't be a problem with vote buying and fraud.

Than the opposition said that in such an undemocratic situation it doesn't make sense to contest.

The election were a complete disaster: Just look at Nakhon Si Thammerat: The Government let a dummy candidate contest to go around the minimum requirements if there is just one candidate.

The dummy candidate got 0 votes , he didn't even vote for himself.

The new NST MP won with 18 votes

The rest of the voter boycott the election or voted "no".

Does that sound like a democratic election where the population vote for their best?

Mentors · March 21, 2014

The Yellows try everything to not loosing more power. But anyway, the time of this old guard is numbered.

seajae · March 21, 2014

the fun and games begin, this is going to be very interesting which ever way it goes. Lets hope the Thailand people come out on top and not just either party.

Scamper · March 21, 2014

The Constitutional Court is the highest court in the land. They will deliver a key and historic ruling today. Their ruling must be respected by all sides. Last night, a judge's home from the high court was targeted by bomb attacks, and a man seriously injured. The Administrative Court issued a request two weeks ago that judges need to be protected. What had CAPO to say about that ? What has Chalerm to say about this now ? Does the security of judges and judicial institutions warrant his and Tarit's concern ? When an administration that claims to have caretaker status states that they will not respect the ruling of the highest court in the land, while the UDD verbally attack the judicial system, and while Chalerm and CAPO stand idly by, who is there to protect the judges and the judicial system, and who is there is honour their rulings ? A situation where judges cannot even go to sleep at night without fear is unconscionable. It is a national disgrace.

jonclark · March 21, 2014

You are correct in what you say.

But you have confused two separate issues.

Yes, the opposition did carry out demonstrations, parts of Bangkok were under a SoE issued by the government, some polling stations changed venue, some polling stations were blocked, there was violence and some deaths That is all true.

But the issue as I see it is did these actions result in the rights of the wider electorate being infringed on and subsequently the election did not present or provide people with an opportunity to express their views freely and without fear or intimidation. That is in my view the crux of the issue here.

Those who prevented the election being held in a fair manner should be dealt with as a separate issue.

Was the election carried out in a manner that truly allowed the will of the people (or at least a significant proportion) to be gauged, fairly with no significant impingement, intimidation or bias on those people?

My view is that the results will not be representative or have provided an opportunity for people to vote freely as the law requires. Those who prevented this should be dealt with, but the election needs to be invalidated and the people empowered again to choose.

Edited March 21, 2014 by jonclark

smedly · March 21, 2014

100% agree with everything you said - great post and if these types of reforms are completed before any elections are held then Thailand will be a great country and will finally be able to get out of this self destructive cycle for ever

GarryP · March 21, 2014

Accepted yes. Respected is another matter. There are certainly valid questions as to the impartiality of the Court in question and those questions should be answered or at least addressed. However, questioning the basis of judicial rulings in public is frowned upon in Thailand and can land you in hot water if you are not careful.

RedUDead · March 21, 2014

But the Dems could have easily won the elections.

PTP only got 8 million out of 40 million votes. Where do you think the other votes would have went if the Dems were running?

That was as of Feb 2nd. A lot has changed since then and the PTP have lost even more popularity. None of their schemes have paid off for their 2011 voters. They have had ministers on stage supporting secession and celebrating the death of children... That has sickened even their hardcore voters.

The PTP if new elections were running tomorrow would be lucky to get 6 million votes.

Why do idiots keep coming out with the same old BS that PTP will win every time and the Dems can't win an election. That is rubbish. It is not the same as it was in 2011.

PTP have let down their voters big time on all fronts. Farmers killing themselves over debts and non payment for their rice. No end in sight.

The kids didn't get their tablets.

The first time car buyer scheme runs out of money halfway through payments (where did that money go?)

The minimum pay for holders of bachelor's degrees, that was suddenly changed after the election victory to only cover government workers and 3 years on and even those government workers are still waiting.

PTP and Thaksin who used to be loved where I live in the northeast are now hated by the majority and people round here really wanted the Dems to run.

The Dems have even come out and said they won't contest the new election unless the election system is overhauled to make it fair, and Yingluck stands down... They Know they would win it hands down this time. But are making an ultimate sacrifice of assured victory once again for the good of the nation and democracy.

So you lot who keep calling the Dems 'unelectable' need to get your head out of the past and catch up to the rest of us, because we are living in 2014 and things are massively different to 2011.

GarryP · March 21, 2014

Agree with the above. But I would suggest including reforming defamation laws. If someone has done something wrong, one should be able to name them without the risk of being sued for defamation. No more Mr. C did this, Mr. R did that rubbish.

As it stands in Thailand, even if what you say is absolutely true and is widely known to be true, you can be still guilty of defamation.

Edited March 21, 2014 by GarryP

Arkady · March 21, 2014

I think you need to consider the two petitions together. The EC's petition asks what it should do about the 28 constituencies with no candidates. Under the constitution and the Organic Law on Elections the period for registration must close 25 days after the royal decree dissolving the House has been issued. Therefore the EC apparently has no constitutional way to reopen candidate registrations without another royal decree which would on the face of it appear to nullify the previous one. Moreover the constitution only allows for a royal decree to be issued to dissolve the House which has already taken place.

The EC is correct to make this petition because the commissioners would risk being charged with malfeasance if they proceeded with the candidate registration with no ruling from the Constitutional Court. If the Constitutional Court rules that the EC may make an exception in order to complete the election, it will follow that the Ombudsman's petition to annul the election will be rejected and the election may be completed.

On the other hand, if the court decides that, regardless of extenuating circumstances in the form of disruptions, the constitution must still be complied with fully, which seems likely since that is the role of a constitutional court, the EC's petition alone could lead to a stalemate, i.e. the constitutionality of the elections thus far is unchallenged but there is no constitutional way to complete them. That could lead to a situation where the caretaker government continues for ever as the election can never be completed and new elections can never be called because the House has already been dissolved.

The EC itself didn't want to petition to ask whether the 2 Feb election was lawful and agrees with the Pheua Thai Party that the Ombudsman had no right to petition the court on behalf of the university lecturer to ask whether the election was lawful. The reason for this is that the EC commissioners are likely to be accused of malfeasance, if the election is held to have been unconstitutional. In fact the constitution allows anyone to petition the court, if they have evidence that any part of the constitution has been violated. So the idea that the Ombudsman has no right to petition the court rests solely on the flimsy argument that the Office of the Ombudsman is not specifically designated as a body that can petition the court (but nor is it specifically prohibited from doing so).

So clearly from the court's point of view the Ombudsman's petition will allow it to clean up the mess left by the EC by annulling the election, in the event that the EC's petition results in an election that cannot be completed. If it goes the other way, the court may allow the election to be completed and reject the Ombudsman's petition which would make absolutely clear that the election can no longer be challenged.

There is actually a legal logic to all this, although it may not be apparent to those who are unwilling or unable to seek out the legal facts.

webfact · March 21, 2014

RT @tulsathit: Urgent: Constitution Court has declared Feb 2 election null and void. Vote is 6:3

Arkady · March 21, 2014

A good point Garry. In fact the defamation law needs to be removed from the Penal Code completely and left as purely a civil offence, as it is in most civilised jurisdictions the world over. Criminal defamation law is a major reason for weak investigative reporting in Thailand. Journalists can be dumped in prison without bail on the flimsiest of charges and media owners often settle privately and leave the journalists to face the music on their own. Once a public prosecution has a filed a criminal defamation case, even the plaintiff cannot have it dropped.

The clock should stop on statutes of limitations in any case where the accused has become a fugitive. Dropping statutes of limitations on corruption cases and other serious crimes completely would also make sense. If there is still evidence to prosecute a murderer after 20 years, why should he be allowed to go free?

Bail should be denied in cases where there is an obvious flight risk.

Arkady · March 21, 2014

Criticising court rulings is contempt of court which is a criminal offence. That is another needed reform. Open discussion of the work of the judicial branch is as necessary as open discussion of the work of the administrative and legislative branches. Criticising court decisions is certainly not a criminal offence in any developed democratic systems and should not be in Thailand either.

Spalpeen · March 21, 2014

Revolution time!

webfact · March 21, 2014

please continue:

Thai Constitutional Court voids February election

BANGKOK, March 21, 2014 (AFP) - Thailand's Constitutional Court ruled on Friday that a general election held last month was invalid, a spokesman said, deepening a political stalemate following weeks of opposition protests.

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/712694-thai-constitutional-court-voids-february-election/

//CLOSED//

Sign In

Thai court to rule on election validity

Recommended Posts

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US