Court president faces revolt over law amendment move

[Lite Beer]

Court president faces revolt over law amendment move
Kesinee Taengkhiao
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The president of the Supreme Administrative Court, Hasawut Withiwiriyakul, is facing a fierce challenge from fellow judges with 101 of them petitioning the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to reject a proposed amendment of an Administrative Court law.

The NLA took the petition into consideration and asked the judges to settle internal disputes first before approaching the NLA.

Of the 200 judges in the country's administrative courts, the 101 who signed the petition said they knew nothing about the idea to amend Administrative Court law. They said they did not even know who had proposed the amendment to the NLA.

The draft was prepared by court president Hasawut, who also proposed the amendment to the NLA.

The main aim in amending the law is to make the Administrative Court's judicial committee more independent from intervention by outsiders, an official who supported the draft said.

The law needed to be rewritten, he said, to guarantee independence of the judicial committee because it lacks protection under the 2007 Constitution, which was annulled after the coup, he said.

Technically, many clauses of the law of the Administrative Court are connected to the now-defunct constitution. In the current situation, it would be very problematic to apply the law to many matters. The number of judicial panel members in the court, for instance, was cut from 13 to seven, as many members from the Senate had to quit after the 2007 charter was abrogated. Thailand now has no Senate.

Judges who support the amendment say it is better to rewrite the law of the Administrative Court to be a stand-alone law, rather than an organic law of the constitution, as in Thailand coups have often led to the constitution being annulled.

Furthermore, the amendment guaranteeing the judicial committee's independence was an urgent matter for the court president, as a reshuffle of judges throughout the country is expected soon.

The draft of the amendment would save the judicial committee from outsiders intervening in the reshuffle, the official said.

However, the amendment proposal has come under scrutiny amid doubts on whether Hasawut may have a hidden agenda to cover his problems from a recent scandal when the court's secretary sent a note to the national police chief allegedly seeking to promote a policeman close to Hasawut.

Some judges, who have signed the petition, have serious concerns about the amendment as they claim it was proposed without their knowledge. They have the right to know the contents of the amendment and want to have some input, as it has implications that would affect the structure of the court and all judges.

However, another official said the 101 judges were supposed to know the content as the amendment proposal had been circulated and an in-house opinion poll had suggested that 91.6 per cent of judges in the court agreed with it.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-president-faces-revolt-over-law-amendment-mo-30243205.html

-- The Nation 2014-09-13

[Suriya4]

Court must not be independent. Check and balance by Prayut is a must.

[halloween]

"91.6 per cent of judges in the court agreed with it."

When you play with poll results, you have to be careful. If the result was 91.5% of 200, it meant that 17 judges disagreed, which is plausible. 16.8 judges disagreeing is somewhat less plausible.

[binjalin]

Court must not be independent. Check and balance by Prayut is a must.

Court must not be independent

you are joking right? you don't think courts should be independent???

[rubl]

Amendment had circulated, probably a few pages which slipped into a very thick and dull report on something totally uninteresting as to make sure no one would find it?

Or as the Right Honorable J. Hacker discovered

"Then after dinner I did the boxes and sure enough, at the bottom of the fifth box, I found a submission on the Data Base. Not merely at the bottom of the fifth box to be doubly certain the submission had somehow slipped into the middle of an eighty-page report on Welfare Procedures."

Yes, Minister, episode Big Brother

[ballpoint]

Amendment had circulated, probably a few pages which slipped into a very thick and dull report on something totally uninteresting as to make sure no one would find it?

Or as the Right Honorable J. Hacker discovered

"Then after dinner I did the boxes and sure enough, at the bottom of the fifth box, I found a submission on the Data Base. Not merely at the bottom of the fifth box to be doubly certain the submission had somehow slipped into the middle of an eighty-page report on Welfare Procedures."

Yes, Minister, episode Big Brother

No, the amendment was actually on full display for any one to examine. In the courthouse basement, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet inside a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".

(With acknowledgement to the late D. Adams).

[DrLom]

Amendment had circulated, probably a few pages which slipped into a very thick and dull report on something totally uninteresting as to make sure no one would find it?

Or as the Right Honorable J. Hacker discovered

"Then after dinner I did the boxes and sure enough, at the bottom of the fifth box, I found a submission on the Data Base. Not merely at the bottom of the fifth box to be doubly certain the submission had somehow slipped into the middle of an eighty-page report on Welfare Procedures."

Yes, Minister, episode Big Brother

No, the amendment was actually on full display for any one to examine. In the courthouse basement, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet inside a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".

(With acknowledgement to the late D. Adams).

Was that one of the filing cabinets that got burnt in a fire, when in police custody?

[jayboy]

Does anybody actually understand what all this is about? If so you are smarter than me.

[rubl]

Does anybody actually understand what all this is about? If so you are smarter than me.

Stripped of all distraction it would seem the base is the procedurial aspects of how an amendment to the Administrative Court was proposed to the NLA.

The contents of the amendment seems only in doubt as some suggested a 'hidden' agenda'

Edited September 13, 2014 by rubl

[rickirs]

"Judges who support the amendment say it is better to rewrite the law of the Administrative Court to be a stand-alone law, rather than an organic law of the constitution, as in Thailand coups have often led to the constitution being annulled."

How is the Administrative Court protected from Article 44 of the Interim Constitution that gives NCPO power to overturn judges rulings and even enact its own laws without legislative review and approval? This amendment is at best naive and at worse a clever way to exempt the Court from the very laws it judges. A constitution sets the foundation for rule of law. If the amendment succeeds, will it essentially establish a de facto additional constitution that sets forth a different rule of law. Why not a different rule of law or constitution for every Thai independent agency so they are too not affected by coups?

I would rather see the judges be more interested in seeing a process wherein a nation's constitution remains inviolate and cannot be summarily suspended or aborgated so that organic law remains INTACT regardless of who controls the government and enforces the laws.

[marcusd]

Does anybody actually understand what all this is about? If so you are smarter than me.

Stripped of all distraction it would seem the base is the procedurial aspects of how an amendment to the Administrative Court was proposed to the NLA.

The contents of the amendment seems only in doubt as some suggested a 'hidden' agenda'

too many COURTS and all ruled over by the same Judges so why so many courts?

[lvr181]

Court must not be independent. Check and balance by Prayut is a must.

Court must not be independent

you are joking right? you don't think courts should be independent???

Lawyers just love to think they are above the law - happens in many western countries also. Unfortunately the same "judges" some times do not take in to account what the Government or the people are wanting.

Independence sounds great (especially to lawyers) but too often fails to meet the expectations of the people.

[rubl]

Does anybody actually understand what all this is about? If so you are smarter than me.

Stripped of all distraction it would seem the base is the procedurial aspects of how an amendment to the Administrative Court was proposed to the NLA.

The contents of the amendment seems only in doubt as some suggested a 'hidden' agenda'

too many COURTS and all ruled over by the same Judges so why so many courts?

Most courts have their own area of jurisdiction with some courts covering appeals to rulings of lower level courts.

As for "same judges", that's new to me (but I still learn new things every day). So, please, could you provide more info on this?

PS I hope 'three times lucky' works as two already told me to do my own searching and either complained or ignored me when I did.

Edited September 13, 2014 by rubl

[Ozziepat]

So a group of judges want to establish judicial powers independent of any constitution, or ruling junta, or legislative or executive checks and balances? Really?

Well, good luck with that. I wonder if there is a Thai expression equivalent to "fat chance."

[chickenslegs]

Court must not be independent. Check and balance by Prayut is a must.

Court must not be independent

you are joking right? you don't think courts should be independent???

Over 600 posts of (mostly) hilarious sarcasm by Suriya4 and, still, some people are not getting it.

Edited September 13, 2014 by chickenslegs