Uncertainty on Thai NLA's right to impeach

[webfact]

INTERIM CHAMBER'S POWER
Uncertainty on NLA's right to impeach
The Nation

Matter may be decided by top court

BANGKOK: -- Academics and law-makers yesterday gave a mixed response to the debate over whether the National Legislative Assembly has the authority to impeach politicians from the previous government.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission is reportedly planning to submit the impeachment cases against former senate speaker Nikom Wairatpanich and former House speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont to the NLA.

The NACC ruled earlier this year that Nikom, Somsak and 308 other MPs and senators face impeachment proceedings because they had proposed a bill which sought to amend the constitution and change the composition of the Senate.

The Constitution Court ruled that the bill was unconstitutional.

The Pheu Thai Party is planning to seek a Constitutional Court ruling over whether the NLA has the right to impeach the politicians.

Legal experts presented different views on the matter, especially in response to the NLA's right to impeach politicians who have been charged by the NACC) under the defunct 2007 Charter.

Academic Dr Jade Donavanik supports the impeachment of politicians despite the previous charter being scrapped.

He said the NLA members acted as senators, who traditionally had the authority to impeach political office-holders.

He said that although the 2007 Charter had been scrapped, provisions 58 and 64 of the National Anti-Corruption Act 1999 were still in effect.

The provisions clearly stipulated that political office-holders who were believed to be unusually rich, corrupt, had abused their authority or violated the charter or any other laws must face impeachment by the Senate. The NLA now acted as the Senate, so it had the authority to impeach politicians.

NLA member Jetn Sirathranont, who also serves as NLA whip, said the offences allegedly committed by Somsak and Nikom could be prosecuted in accordance with the 2007 Charter, but he conceded it would be difficult to impeach them because the charter was no longer in effect.

He said that Article 5 of the charter stipulated that if the charter were no longer in effect, legal officials must make judgements in accordance with protocol and traditions under the constitutional monarchy system.

He said the NLA would have to decide if it had the authority to impeach under this definition.

NLA member Somchai Swangkarn, an NLA whip, said if the NACC submitted the impeachment cases with the NLA the Assembly chairman must call a meeting to urgently make a decision.

He said although the 2007 Charter was scrapped, Article 58 of the National Anti-Corruption Act 1999 was still in effect.

He said the impeachment decision required 132 of the NLA's 220 member to support the move.

'NLA has to comply with the law'

NLA second deputy chairman Peerasak Porjit questioned the timing of Pheu Thai's attempt to seek the court ruling. Peerasak admitted that Pheu Thai had the right to seek the ruling but questioned whether the move was premature since the NLA had not impeached anyone.

He said the NLA had to comply with the law if it impeached anyone. However, if the Constitutional Court ruled that the assembly did not have the impeachment right, it must abide by the decision.

NLA first deputy chairman Surachai Liengboonlertchai said the court's decision would end the dispute.

He said the NLA would look into the details of the impeachment cases before deciding whether to wait for the court's decision or go ahead with the impeachment proceedings.

Former Democrat Party-list MP Ratchadaporn Kaewsanit attacked Pheu Thai for trying to block the move.

"If the offence is committed under the previous charter … the offence is no longer an offence?" she said. "If this is the case, law offenders can always escape justice."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Uncertainty-on-NLAs-right-to-impeach-30244825.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-06

[Suriya4]

Does that mean that coup maker can also be impeached?

Even though the constitution is no more.

But the coup happens seconds before the constitution was torn into pieces.

Coup is punished by death.

[smutcakes]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

[airconsult]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

Edited October 6, 2014 by airconsult

[smutcakes]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

Ah okay thanks. But was the Senate under the 97 constitution all elected? So who and at what point was it then amended to 50/50 elected/appointed? Is this not a similar situation?

[brucec64]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

It is quite simple - cronyism, nepotism, amnesties, and constitutional amendments, or even scrapping the constitution by force, are all acceptable practises as long as done by the "right" and "good" people.

Otherwise, they are illegal.

[airconsult]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

Ah okay thanks. But was the Senate under the 97 constitution all elected? So who and at what point was it then amended to 50/50 elected/appointed? Is this not a similar situation?

It was changed in 2007 to 50/50 - but then again, the court was ruling based on their interpretation of that constitution of course, not the 1997.

I'm not sure if the restriction on family members was there in 1997 - I suspect not - but then again considering family loyalties here, perhaps that would have been a good piece to keep, just restoring 100% elected.

All water under the bridge now - I think it will probably end up senate appointed 70% and lower house 50% now. After all, elections only cause disruption and strife as we have been shown...... (readers should study sarcasm if they can't interpret for themselves)

[rubl]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

I wonder what happened with Judge Visanu Krue-ngam who was former deputy prime minister and cabinet secretary-general in the Thaksin Shinawatra government and had been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Administrative Court, effective from Oct 1, 2011. Judge Visanu's appointment was announced in a royal command, countersigned by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

[jesimps]

Does that mean that coup maker can also be impeached?

Even though the constitution is no more.

But the coup happens seconds before the constitution was torn into pieces.

Coup is punished by death.

Very perceptive of the NLA to realise that the only way for the Democrats to win an election is to impeach the entire Pheu Thai party. This is also probably a pre-condition of elections ever being allowed to happen again.

[airconsult]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

Well.... it seems to be that the court ruled that changing the senate from half-appointed to fully elected - and removing the restrictions on relatives serving - violated the restriction on changes which would threaten the democratic system with HM as head.

That seems a pretty fine line to draw - I'm not sure what the NACC expected MP's to do? Consult with the court before considering any amendment?

Since it could always have been struck down by an appeal to the court later, I think it's a bit odd to accuse them of a crime simply for voting on it. It brings up the supposition that when something is clearly in the interest of the country, if the opposition vote against it you can change them with malfeasance in office and have them impeached.

EDIT - if you were *really* suspicious you might wonder whether the old system where the judges were appointed by the senate - and conversely the appointed senators were appointed (partially) by judges might have encouraged a bit too much friendliness between judges and appointed senators.

I wonder what happened with Judge Visanu Krue-ngam who was former deputy prime minister and cabinet secretary-general in the Thaksin Shinawatra government and had been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Administrative Court, effective from Oct 1, 2011. Judge Visanu's appointment was announced in a royal command, countersigned by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Sorry Rubl, I guess I should have been clearer - I was referring to the Constitutional court - since the NACC recommendation was based on a ruling from there - not the Supreme Administrative court - while the SAC presents 2 candidates, and the SCJ presents 3 candidates and the Senate selects 4 - the SCJ and SAC candidates must be approved by the Senate before being presented to HM for approval.

At least that was the 2007 system - note that in the Constitutional court process the PM and lower house is not involved at all - you talked about the SAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Thailand#2007_Constitution

[Thai at Heart]

Can someone with knowledge of these matters explain to me what was the difference in this attempt to amend the constitution in comparison to the many other times Governments have amended it?

Are there certain matters in the constitution which are sacrosanct which simply cannot be changed? and other which can?

I suppose there are a couple up top which are supposedly inviolable.

Apparently, if you even think about thinking about changing them, they can accuse you of lese majeste by thought.

[wilcopops]

Can someone explain how you "IMPEACH" someone who isn't in power????