Constitutional Court deliberates PM's extension request

[webfact]

Thai PM given more time in critical legal case

BANGKOK, April 23, 2014 (AFP) - Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday gave crisis-mired Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra more time to submit her defence against allegations of abuse of power which could see her removed from office.

The premier, who is facing a cascade of legal challenges to her tenure as well as months of sometimes violent street protests, must give her defence by May 2, the court said in a statement.

The case pivots on the transfer of then-national security chief Thawil Pliensri after Yingluck was elected in 2011.

A group of senators filed a complaint to the court over Thawil's transfer, saying it was carried out for the benefit of Yingluck's party.

Under the Thai constitution -- drawn up after a 2006 coup that ousted Yingluck's brother Thaksin Shinawatra as premier -- such an offence could lead to her sacking.

The court agreed to Yingluck's request for a 15-day extension -- which she made last Friday -- and said it "will hear four more witnesses on May 6", including Yingluck and Thawil.

But the statement did not indicate when the court may deliver its ruling.

Thailand's judicial agencies have moved centre stage of the near-six month political drama which has seen months of protests, left the kingdom without a fully functioning government since December and seen a February election annulled.

Political violence has also left 25 people dead and hundreds wounded, raising fears of a wider conflict to come.

Yingluck is also accused of negligence linked to a loss-making rice subsidy scheme that critics say engendered widespread corruption.

Either case could lead to her removal from office and pro-government supporters have upped their rhetoric in anticipation of a knock-out legal blow over coming weeks.

Prominent pro-government "Red Shirt" activist Thida Thavornseth said she expects the Constitutional Court to rule against Yingluck in early May.

"Until then we will travel to our provinces to get our people ready to rally... we will protect this government," she said in a televised speech.

Mass protests by the Red Shirts in 2010 triggered a military crackdown under the then Democrat Party government that left scores dead.

The backstory to the crisis is Thaksin's removal from power in a 2006 coup which plunged the kingdom into a downward spiral of political turmoil from which it is yet to emerge.

Thailand has since been cleaved by rivalries broadly pitting the Bangkok-based middle-class and establishment, as well as staunchly royalist south, against the north and northeastern rural heartlands of the Shinawatra clan.

Thaksin-allied parties have won every valid election for more than a decade, helped by strong support in the northern half of the kingdom.

Anti-government protesters want Yingluck to resign to make way for an unelected "people's council" to oversee reforms aimed at diluting the Shinawatra's influence on Thai politics.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-04-23

[rubl]

Some court. 4 of its presiding members are not trained as judges and have zero judicial experience outside of this tribunal.2 of them are not even trained lawyers., How are they to apply laws when they are not actual judges? Another 2 of the judges are from the administrative court system and are not considered constitutional law experts. Is it any wonder why the activity of this tribunal is questioned?

In 1997 the Constitutional Cort started with 15 members, 7 from the judiciary, 8 selected by a special panel. After the coup in 2006 it changed to 9 members all out of the judiciary. This remained such after the 2007 constitution was accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Thailand

So, I assume you're just complaining in general rather than suggesting that the C.C. is not manned correctly?

No, they're not all out of the Judiciary, rubl, that's the point. There are 5 judges, 2 "experts" in law and 2 "experts" in political science.

Excuses, I had misread the wiki article.

1997:

• 5 were judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) and selected by the SCJ Plenum through secret ballot.
• 2 were judges of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and selected by the SAC Plenum through secret ballot.
• 5 were experts in law approved by the Senate after having been selected by a special panel. Such panel consisted of the SCJ President, four deans of law, four deans of political science, and four representatives of the political parties whose members are Representatives.
• 3 were experts in political science approved by the Senate after having been selected by the same panel.

2007:

• 3 are SCJ judges and are selected by the SCJ Plenum through secret ballot.
• 2 are SAC judges and are selected by the SAC Plenum through secret ballot.
• 2 are experts in law approved by the Senate after having been selected by a special panel. Such panel is composed of the SCJ President, the SAC President, the President of the House of Representatives, the Opposition Leader and one of the chiefs of the constitutional independent agencies (Chief Ombudsman, President of the Election Commission, President of the National Anti-Corruption Commission or President of the State Audit Commission).
• 2 are experts in political science, public administration or other field of social science and are approved by the Senate after having been selected by the same panel.

So, I guess the remarks are on principle as the manning is according to the constitution.

[gabruce]

'The ruling Pheu Thai party has prepared either Foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, or Labor minister Chalerm Yoobamrung to replace if Yingluck is forced to step down on court’s ruling.'

What an awful thought.

Actually maybe it's more of a threat. Convict Yingluck and force her to step down and just look at who we will replace her with. Sort of like saying do something I don't like and I'll shoot myself! Will the court dare to rule against the PTP now?

[gabruce]

Here is a funny case of the CC saying to the NACC 'so, you throw em out'.. and the NACC responding 'no, YOU throw em out'. Neither wants the stink of judicial coup on their shoes, the protests resulting from their actions. It is really a matter of the Central Sukhumvit backroom boys eventually deciding which of these institutions pulls the trigger - neither will be seen as legitimate by the upcountry faction, and the results are still unknown - will it be 2007 all over again, or something more destabilizing? Or will it go over with a whimper? Nobody knows.

or neither group want's to rule against Thaksin and crew and be blamed for it, and yet they know they both have to because it's the legally and morally correct thing to do?

[xminator]

No doubt because the establishment can't find the correct piece to move to get to the end game. Temporarily taking Yingluck Shinawatra out of the race (temp because while she can not be caretaker pm, she is only a senate meeting away from getting back into the politics). Then the caretaker government can just give the chair to the next in line (chalerm etc), so nothing gained. Then there is of course the issue of getting the Senate to meet. Something that needs a royal decree, and looks like Sutheps ultimate constitution didnt think about that, so caretaker government does not have to issue such a decree.

And with nothing that can mass ban or dissolve PT politicians, it looks like the election (or a coup that will be very hard for Mark to explain when he again can meet foreign politicians - combined with the likely threat of a popular uprising, a real thai spring) is the only way forward. And while the EC continue to not do the job they get paid to do, Thailand and the tourism industry suffers. Of course there is no rush until november, but a solution need to be found before travel agencies start working on next high season. Thats about now and a couple of months more. And for them a coup will be no better then the current situation. They need something that looks like stability. So right now it looks like the thai middle class is doing a collective economic suicide.

[rubl]

No doubt because the establishment can't find the correct piece to move to get to the end game. Temporarily taking Yingluck Shinawatra out of the race (temp because while she can not be caretaker pm, she is only a senate meeting away from getting back into the politics). Then the caretaker government can just give the chair to the next in line (chalerm etc), so nothing gained. Then there is of course the issue of getting the Senate to meet. Something that needs a royal decree, and looks like Sutheps ultimate constitution didnt think about that, so caretaker government does not have to issue such a decree.

And with nothing that can mass ban or dissolve PT politicians, it looks like the election (or a coup that will be very hard for Mark to explain when he again can meet foreign politicians - combined with the likely threat of a popular uprising, a real thai spring) is the only way forward. And while the EC continue to not do the job they get paid to do, Thailand and the tourism industry suffers. Of course there is no rush until november, but a solution need to be found before travel agencies start working on next high season. Thats about now and a couple of months more. And for them a coup will be no better then the current situation. They need something that looks like stability. So right now it looks like the thai middle class is doing a collective economic suicide.

Democracy comes at a price

[than]

Amazing, where's people how crying that NACC and CC are unfair against YL ? they see today that she was treating fairly by court since the beginning

[WoopyDoo]

No doubt because the establishment can't find the correct piece to move to get to the end game. Temporarily taking Yingluck Shinawatra out of the race (temp because while she can not be caretaker pm, she is only a senate meeting away from getting back into the politics). Then the caretaker government can just give the chair to the next in line (chalerm etc), so nothing gained. Then there is of course the issue of getting the Senate to meet. Something that needs a royal decree, and looks like Sutheps ultimate constitution didnt think about that, so caretaker government does not have to issue such a decree.

And with nothing that can mass ban or dissolve PT politicians, it looks like the election (or a coup that will be very hard for Mark to explain when he again can meet foreign politicians - combined with the likely threat of a popular uprising, a real thai spring) is the only way forward. And while the EC continue to not do the job they get paid to do, Thailand and the tourism industry suffers. Of course there is no rush until november, but a solution need to be found before travel agencies start working on next high season. Thats about now and a couple of months more. And for them a coup will be no better then the current situation. They need something that looks like stability. So right now it looks like the thai middle class is doing a collective economic suicide.

You obviously pretend to know what you are talking about, but it is clear to those who do, that you actually don't know what you are talking about, so you wasted your time typing all that crap out.

The cons court case can remove her and the cabinet with the stroke of a pen.... no need for the senate. They have impeachment power unlike the NACC.

Only the NACC case can result in a ruling against her, and recommend an impeachment by the senate.

But even the NACC has the power to rule against her and can actually end up ruling that not only was she negligent, but also of being personally involved in the facilitation of fraud in the rice scam of which I am sure their can be evidence... Then she will be charged by the criminal court.

The PM involved in a criminal court case will HAVE to be suspended from duty and can NOT be put back in her duty by the senate.

Anyway..... what makes you think that the senate is owned by the Shin clan?

Please give a list of all senators and their allegiances. Or you just talking out of your a-se?

Edited April 23, 2014 by WoopyDoo

[JRSoul]

Some court. 4 of its presiding members are not trained as judges and have zero judicial experience outside of this tribunal.2 of them are not even trained lawyers., How are they to apply laws when they are not actual judges? Another 2 of the judges are from the administrative court system and are not considered constitutional law experts. Is it any wonder why the activity of this tribunal is questioned?

In 1997 the Constitutional Cort started with 15 members, 7 from the judiciary, 8 selected by a special panel. After the coup in 2006 it changed to 9 members all out of the judiciary. This remained such after the 2007 constitution was accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Thailand

So, I assume you're just complaining in general rather than suggesting that the C.C. is not manned correctly?

No, they're not all out of the Judiciary, rubl, that's the point. There are 5 judges, 2 "experts" in law and 2 "experts" in political science.

What leads you to claim "expert"? Do you have some proof that they lack expertise in the nominated fields?

[klauskunkel]

The judges deliberation:

1st judge: "If we don't give her the extension, we'll get grenades thrown at our houses..."

2nd Judge: "...or worse still, they throw Jatuporn's and Thida's feces at us!"

3rd judge: " ...or they curse us with ancient magic involving menstrual blood, bah!"

4th judge: " ...or all of that at the same time!"

5th judge: "yes, but if we grant the extension the yellows will whistle in our ears until the ear drums explode!"

6th judge: "I abstain"

7th judge: "have to go bathroom, this is really not easy on my bladder"

8th judge: "I'll join you"

9th judge: "I've got it - let's just deliberate for about 2 weeks, and then deny! Everybody gets what they want!"

Chorus: "You are freakin' awesome, man! Judge of the year!"

[webfact]

Constitutional Court gives 15-day deadline extension to caretaker PM on Thawil case
By English News



BANGKOK, April 23 -- Constitutional Court on Wednesday approved caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck's request for a 15-day extension to defend herself on the controversial transfer of Thawil Pleansri from his position as National Security Council (NSC) Secretary General to an inactive post.

The Constitutional Court earlier told Ms Yingluck to present evidence to defend herself in the case on April 18 but her legal team asked the Court for a 15-day extension, saying that she needed more time to prepare her testimony.

The Court today agreed to give Ms Yingluck another 15 days, from April 18 to May 2.

Apart from Ms Yingluck, the Court has also ordered testimony from more witnesses, including appointed senator Paibul Nititawan who filed the petition, Pol Gen Wichean Potephosree, former national police chief and former NSC chief, and Mr Thawil himself.

The three witnesses were considered by the Court as stakeholders and were ordered to testify on May 6.

After Mr Thawil was transferred, Ms Yingluck appointed Gen Wichean to the post. Gen Wichean was later transferred to become permanent secretary of the Transport Ministry and Lt Gen Paradorn Pattanatabut was promoted from NSC deputy secretary general to become the agency's head.

A group of senators led by Mr Paibooon petitioned to Court to consider termination of Ms Yingluck's positions in accordance with Article 182 (7) and Article 268, following the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling on Mr Thawil's reinstatement as NSC Secretary-General since the transfer in 2011 was done in an unlawful manner.

The Court rejected Ms Yingluck's request for three witnesses--Pol Gen Kovit Wattana, former deputy prime minister; Labour Minister Chalerm Yubamrung and Pol Gen Achirawit Supanpesat, former deputy police chief.

The Court said the three were irrelevant to the case. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2014-04-23

[Bakseeda]

Some court. 4 of its presiding members are not trained as judges and have zero judicial experience outside of this tribunal.2 of them are not even trained lawyers., How are they to apply laws when they are not actual judges? Another 2 of the judges are from the administrative court system and are not considered constitutional law experts. Is it any wonder why the activity of this tribunal is questioned?

What a lot of nonsense... just who told you this crock of bull... do you have a hot line to Mr T.. ? There are only 3 judges presiding on this case... but somehow you have 8+ ... Magic...

[geriatrickid]

geriatrickid post # 12

Some court. 4 of its presiding members are not trained as judges and have zero judicial experience outside of this tribunal.2 of them are not even trained lawyers., How are they to apply laws when they are not actual judges? Another 2 of the judges are from the administrative court system and are not considered constitutional law experts. Is it any wonder why the activity of this tribunal is questioned?

So you are presumably fully conversant with all the legal points concerning the court,its activities and its panel of judges ?

Please could you or can you give we lesser mortals a lesson as to how the court should function and with you as the lead counsel in the matter?

If there is to be a constitutional court it should be comprised of experienced judges with a demonstrated expertise in constitutional law.

The current structure of the court is the result of the 2007 military dictatorship and its appointees except for one were appointed in 2008 by the military dictatorship.

Do you not think there is something inherently wrong that people appointed by the group who overthrew a democracy and imposed a military dictatorship would be allowed to consider issues that relate to a functioning democracy? I suggest you read the biographies of the key members of this "court" and consider their past political affiliations.

[geriatrickid]

Some court. 4 of its presiding members are not trained as judges and have zero judicial experience outside of this tribunal.2 of them are not even trained lawyers., How are they to apply laws when they are not actual judges? Another 2 of the judges are from the administrative court system and are not considered constitutional law experts. Is it any wonder why the activity of this tribunal is questioned?

What a lot of nonsense... just who told you this crock of bull... do you have a hot line to Mr T.. ? There are only 3 judges presiding on this case... but somehow you have 8+ ... Magic...

The composition and structure of the "Constitutional Court" is public knowledge.

No, I do not have a hotline to Mr. T., but I do keep abreast of the news. Here's some help;

Nine judges voted unanimously to accept the petition filed by a group of senators arguing that Yingluck’s decision to remove the National Security Council secretary-general from office in 2011 was an unconstitutional abuse of power http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-02/thai-court-to-hear-case-that-could-topple-premier-yingluck

BANGKOK, 22 April 2014 (NNT) The Constitutional Court will on April 23rd consider Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatraâs request for more time to defend herself against charges in connection with the transfer of Mr. Thawil Pliensri, former National Security Council (NSC) chief.

According to Charter Court spokesperson Pimol Thampitakpong, the court will convene a meeting to discuss whether or not it should grant the Premier more time in the case concerning the transfer of Mr. Thawil from NSC chief to an adviser to the PM’s Office. The spokesperson said all the nine Constitutional Court judges will attend the discussion.

http://thaifinancialpost.com/2014/04/22/charter-court-to-consider-pms-request-for-more-time-to-defend-herself-in-nsc-chief-transfer-case/

The above examples all reference important parts of the process. Now, please explain to me what is nonsense.

Is the part where 9 judges provided rulings in this case?

Is it the part where 4 of the 9 are not trained as judges?

Is it the part where and additional 2 are not from a court which provided experience in constitutional law cases?

Is it the part that 8 of the 9 were appointed by the former military dictatorship, a regime that is opposed to the election of the PTP?

Please tell me where the nonsense is, because the only nonsense I can see is your statement.

[geriatrickid]

What leads you to claim "expert"? Do you have some proof that they lack expertise in the nominated fields?

Please read their biographies. This is supposed to be a court that specializes in constitutional law. As such, one would expect that the presiding judges to have solid educations in respect to constitutional law. Indications would be an LLM in constitutional law from a reputable university, experience as a litigator in constitutional law, experience as an academic in constitutional law, etc.

Please tell me if all of the presiding judges have that type of background.

There is no denying that many are educated and some even practiced law. However, one does not consult with a cardiologist, no matter how brilliant and qualified as a cardiologist, if one has a brain injury. One does not preside over cases involving maritime law if one has a limited background in maritime law etc.

[Wombat6]

Some court. 4 of its presiding members are not trained as judges and have zero judicial experience outside of this tribunal.2 of them are not even trained lawyers., How are they to apply laws when they are not actual judges? Another 2 of the judges are from the administrative court system and are not considered constitutional law experts. Is it any wonder why the activity of this tribunal is questioned?

We didn't hear you complain when an inexperienced Politician was made Prime Minister who knows nothing, does nothing and is contemptuous of any Court.