NLA to cast impeachment votes on 38 ex-senators March 13

[Lite Beer]

NLA to cast impeachment votes on 38 ex-senators March 13

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is scheduled to vote on March 13 on whether or not to impeach the 38 former senators accused by the anti-graft agency of amending the previous constitution for their own benefit.

Representatives of the ex-senators yesterday defended themselves in their opening statement presented before an NLA meeting.

Former senator Direk Thuengfang, one of the group's representatives, said none of them had any intention of amending the now-defunct charter for their own benefit. He said that although the amendment would allow then incumbent senators to seek re-election, it was uncertain that they would win.

The ex-senator also pointed out that the version of the constitution to which the National Anti-Corruption Commission is referring in its impeachment proceedings was abolished after the coup last May. So, he added, the case against them should also be dropped.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/NLA-to-cast-impeachment-votes-on-38-ex-senators-Ma-30254854.html

-- The Nation 2015-02-25

[smutcakes]

Simply amazing, charged for amending the conts for their own benefit.

How about those who were put in their position by an illegal act?

[Robby nz]

The amended version would also have allowed relatives of sitting MP's to become senators, another sticking point.

The constitution has been abolished so therefore anything that happened under that constitution should also be abolished.

Yea right, sorry about that fella, the law still applies.

But they are probably right they didn't do it for themselves they did it for their paymaster on the other side of the world.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Robby nz

[brucec64]

The amended version would also have allowed relatives of sitting MP's to become senators, another sticking point.

The constitution has been abolished so therefore anything that happened under that constitution should also be abolished.

Yea right, sorry about that fella, the law still applies.

But they are probably right they didn't do it for themselves they did it for their paymaster on the other side of the world.

No, the law does not still apply. This is a section from the Thai Criminal Code: (Section 2) http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html#2

Section 2 A person shall be criminally punished only when the act done by such person is provided to be an offence and the punishment is defined by the law in force at the time of the doing of such act, and the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender shall be that provided by the law.

If, according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender; and, if there is a final judgment inflicting the punishment, such person shall be deemed as not having ever been convicted by the judgment for committing such offence. If, however, such person is still undergoing the punishment, the punishment shall forthwith terminate.

Section 3 If the law in force at the time of committing the offence is different from that in force after the time of committing the offence, the law which is, in any way, more favorable to the offender, shall be applied, unless the case is final. But, in the case where it is final as follows:

1. If the offender has not yet undergone the punishment, or is undergoing the punishment, and the punishment determined by the judgment is heavier than that provided by the law afterwards, when it appears to the Court from the file of the case, or when the offender, the legal representative or guardian of such person, or the Public Prosecutor makes a request, the Court shall re-determine the punishment according to the law as provided afterwards. In re-determining the punishment by the Court, if it appears that the offender has undergone a part of the punishment, the Court, when having regard to the punishment as provided by the law afterwards, may, if it thinks fit, determine less punishment than the minimum punishment as provided by the law afterwards, if any, or if it is of opinion that the punishment already undergone by the offender is sufficient, the Court may release the offender;
2. if the Court has passed the judgment of death upon the offender, but, according to the law as provided afterwards, the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender is not as high as death, the execution of the offender shall be suspended, and it shall be deemed that the punishment of death according to the judgment has been changed to be the highest punishment to be inflicted according to the law as provided afterwards.

According to this Act, the 2007 Constitution is no longer in effect, and there is no facility within the current interim constituion to impeach, so according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender.

But don't let the law get in the way of a good old fashioned lynching!

Edited February 25, 2015 by brucec64

[Robby nz]

The amended version would also have allowed relatives of sitting MP's to become senators, another sticking point.

The constitution has been abolished so therefore anything that happened under that constitution should also be abolished.

Yea right, sorry about that fella, the law still applies.

But they are probably right they didn't do it for themselves they did it for their paymaster on the other side of the world.

No, the law does not still apply. This is a section from the Thai Criminal Code: (Section 2) http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html#2

Section 2 A person shall be criminally punished only when the act done by such person is provided to be an offence and the punishment is defined by the law in force at the time of the doing of such act, and the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender shall be that provided by the law.

If, according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender; and, if there is a final judgment inflicting the punishment, such person shall be deemed as not having ever been convicted by the judgment for committing such offence. If, however, such person is still undergoing the punishment, the punishment shall forthwith terminate.

Section 3 If the law in force at the time of committing the offence is different from that in force after the time of committing the offence, the law which is, in any way, more favorable to the offender, shall be applied, unless the case is final. But, in the case where it is final as follows:

1. If the offender has not yet undergone the punishment, or is undergoing the punishment, and the punishment determined by the judgment is heavier than that provided by the law afterwards, when it appears to the Court from the file of the case, or when the offender, the legal representative or guardian of such person, or the Public Prosecutor makes a request, the Court shall re-determine the punishment according to the law as provided afterwards. In re-determining the punishment by the Court, if it appears that the offender has undergone a part of the punishment, the Court, when having regard to the punishment as provided by the law afterwards, may, if it thinks fit, determine less punishment than the minimum punishment as provided by the law afterwards, if any, or if it is of opinion that the punishment already undergone by the offender is sufficient, the Court may release the offender;
2. if the Court has passed the judgment of death upon the offender, but, according to the law as provided afterwards, the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender is not as high as death, the execution of the offender shall be suspended, and it shall be deemed that the punishment of death according to the judgment has been changed to be the highest punishment to be inflicted according to the law as provided afterwards.

According to this Act, the 2007 Constitution is no longer in effect, and there is no facility within the current interim constituion to impeach, so according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender.

But don't let the law get in the way of a good old fashioned lynching!

However of your long post we only have to look as far as :

Section 2 A person shall be criminally punished only when the act done by such person is provided to be an offence and the punishment is defined by the law in force at the time of the doing of such act, and the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender shall be that provided by the law.

As defined by the law in force at the time of doing the act.

I see nowhere that the rest of it cancels that out.

But according to you all crime committed under the old constitution should now be forgotten.

Do you think that is the intention of the law ?

[brucec64]

The amended version would also have allowed relatives of sitting MP's to become senators, another sticking point.

The constitution has been abolished so therefore anything that happened under that constitution should also be abolished.

Yea right, sorry about that fella, the law still applies.

But they are probably right they didn't do it for themselves they did it for their paymaster on the other side of the world.

No, the law does not still apply. This is a section from the Thai Criminal Code: (Section 2) http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html#2

Section 2 A person shall be criminally punished only when the act done by such person is provided to be an offence and the punishment is defined by the law in force at the time of the doing of such act, and the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender shall be that provided by the law.

If, according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender; and, if there is a final judgment inflicting the punishment, such person shall be deemed as not having ever been convicted by the judgment for committing such offence. If, however, such person is still undergoing the punishment, the punishment shall forthwith terminate.

Section 3 If the law in force at the time of committing the offence is different from that in force after the time of committing the offence, the law which is, in any way, more favorable to the offender, shall be applied, unless the case is final. But, in the case where it is final as follows:

1. If the offender has not yet undergone the punishment, or is undergoing the punishment, and the punishment determined by the judgment is heavier than that provided by the law afterwards, when it appears to the Court from the file of the case, or when the offender, the legal representative or guardian of such person, or the Public Prosecutor makes a request, the Court shall re-determine the punishment according to the law as provided afterwards. In re-determining the punishment by the Court, if it appears that the offender has undergone a part of the punishment, the Court, when having regard to the punishment as provided by the law afterwards, may, if it thinks fit, determine less punishment than the minimum punishment as provided by the law afterwards, if any, or if it is of opinion that the punishment already undergone by the offender is sufficient, the Court may release the offender;
2. if the Court has passed the judgment of death upon the offender, but, according to the law as provided afterwards, the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender is not as high as death, the execution of the offender shall be suspended, and it shall be deemed that the punishment of death according to the judgment has been changed to be the highest punishment to be inflicted according to the law as provided afterwards.

According to this Act, the 2007 Constitution is no longer in effect, and there is no facility within the current interim constituion to impeach, so according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender.

But don't let the law get in the way of a good old fashioned lynching!

However of your long post we only have to look as far as :

Section 2 A person shall be criminally punished only when the act done by such person is provided to be an offence and the punishment is defined by the law in force at the time of the doing of such act, and the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender shall be that provided by the law.

As defined by the law in force at the time of doing the act.

I see nowhere that the rest of it cancels that out.

But according to you all crime committed under the old constitution should now be forgotten.

Do you think that is the intention of the law ?

I put it in bold so that you would see it. I will underline also.

If, according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender

This cancels it out.

This is the law. It means that specific constitution offences no longer apply if they have not been replaced with new offences. The interim constituiton does not cover this, and the NLA is making it up as they go along. Yingluck was also charged under laws that are still in effect, but one of the reasons that the other two senators were not impeached was because the 2007 Constituion was no longer in effect.

That is another reason why there was a call to postpone this impeachment until a proper constitution was in place, along with the credibility that an elected House would provide. However, this is all about cleaning house and eliminating opponents, so waiting is obviously not an option.

[Reigntax]

Rob by NZ, It's quite simple. To proscute a crime under any law, that law has to have been continuously in force during the time the crime was committed and the time of prosecution. If/ when a law is repealed any crime associated with that law no longer exists.

When lawmakers decide to replace an existing law or legislation, whether in full or part, the new laws will reference the repeal of the former law, thereby creating an unbroken timeline which would allow enforcement subject to the superceded law, if still part of the new law. The repeal and replacement occur simultaneously.

Anything else would be considered retrospective enforcement and if such was allowable would mean that you could be prosecuted for a previous legal act that is now deemed illegal

The director general had to "throw out" the 2007 constitution otherwise he could be charged for instigating the coup. What he didn't realise, in his naive wisdom, that in doing so, he also removed the chance to proscute former crimes. In the days and weeks after, he gradually reinstated sections of the old constitution to allow enforcement of prior crimes, however, if his actions were ever judged by a fully independent court, there was a period of time where possibily no law existed.

The interim constitution was to fix this obvious stuff up in his haste to take over and absolve himself of being charged.

It doesn't have to be right, it just has to be legal as judged or interpreted by a decision of a court.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Reigntax

[phoenixdoglover]

The Thai Supreme (Constitution) Court struck down this supposedly illegal act to amend the Constitution. According to the WSJ, "The majority of the nine judges ruled that making the Senate fully elected would "destroy the checks and balances" and could lead to a seizure of power in the Parliament."

I see two flaws in this reasoning from an American perspective: 1) the "check and balance" against a legislature in Thailand is (was) the Constitution Court, as evidenced by the ability of the court to set aside this particular legislation (mission accomplished, right?); and 2) What the heck is wrong with electing all the Senators?

Oh, I forgot, the appointed Senators are "Good People", as opposed to those elected, who are "corrupt".

[Baerboxer]

The Thai Supreme (Constitution) Court struck down this supposedly illegal act to amend the Constitution. According to the WSJ, "The majority of the nine judges ruled that making the Senate fully elected would "destroy the checks and balances" and could lead to a seizure of power in the Parliament."

I see two flaws in this reasoning from an American perspective: 1) the "check and balance" against a legislature in Thailand is (was) the Constitution Court, as evidenced by the ability of the court to set aside this particular legislation (mission accomplished, right?); and 2) What the heck is wrong with electing all the Senators?

Oh, I forgot, the appointed Senators are "Good People", as opposed to those elected, who are "corrupt".

Nothing is wrong with electing all senators - some countries do so. Others like the UK, Ireland, Canada and many more do not elect all senators.

These guys wanted to amend the rules so incumbent senators could re-stand, effectively a "job for life"; and allow wives and children of members of the lower house to stand. Bear in mind senators are independent, not affiliated to political parties (555), and are a key part of the check and balances process.

Of course spouses of PTP MP's who became senators would be totally independent and have free will on all votes

[surangw]

a smaller list ( if it even exists) would be the ones that are not bent

[rametindallas]

It seems some lawyer want it both ways.

[Srikcir]

The amended version would also have allowed relatives of sitting MP's to become senators, another sticking point.

The constitution has been abolished so therefore anything that happened under that constitution should also be abolished.

Yea right, sorry about that fella, the law still applies.

But they are probably right they didn't do it for themselves they did it for their paymaster on the other side of the world.

If the law still applied after NCPO abolished the 2007 Constitution, then how can NCPO violate that rule of law:

- grant itself AMNESTY for the coup

- grant itself ABSOLUTE POWER over the Thai Peoples

- REMOVED an elected government

- CHANGE the structure of government

- APPOINT itself as Head of Government

If the rule of law as defined by the 2007 Constitution applies retroactively for the sake of argument, then so should the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That requires impeachment according to the 2007 Constitution by an elected parliament. What you support is a politically motivated body who follows the rule of tyranny.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Srikcir

[Srikcir]

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

The Thai Supreme (Constitution) Court struck down this supposedly illegal act to amend the Constitution. According to the WSJ, "The majority of the nine judges ruled that making the Senate fully elected would "destroy the checks and balances" and could lead to a seizure of power in the Parliament."

I see two flaws in this reasoning from an American perspective: 1) the "check and balance" against a legislature in Thailand is (was) the Constitution Court, as evidenced by the ability of the court to set aside this particular legislation (mission accomplished, right?); and 2) What the heck is wrong with electing all the Senators?

Oh, I forgot, the appointed Senators are "Good People", as opposed to those elected, who are "corrupt".

Nothing is wrong with electing all senators - some countries do so. Others like the UK, Ireland, Canada and many more do not elect all senators.

These guys wanted to amend the rules so incumbent senators could re-stand, effectively a "job for life"; and allow wives and children of members of the lower house to stand. Bear in mind senators are independent, not affiliated to political parties (555), and are a key part of the check and balances process.

Of course spouses of PTP MP's who became senators would be totally independent and have free will on all votes

Half of the Senate was ELECTED and the other half is appointed. So going to an all-elected Senate is not such an extreme concept at all. THE USA has a 100% elected Senate and seems somehow to remain a functional democracy.

A sovereign peoples should have the authority to change their constitution. But when constitutions are constantly re-created by military coups to install an unelected military government through overthrow of the peoples' sovereignty, it is the RULE OF TYRANNY that prevails - not democracy.

[wabothai]

The amount of 38 is quite extraordinary. Does not make the senate credible.

[Eric Loh]

Article 291 of the constitution clearly permits the Parliment to amend the charter and that include the composition of the senates as long as it don't touch on the 2 prohibited changes which are the constitutional monarchy and form of government. Here again, the court is making their own idioscrantic interpretation of the law. Happen too many times.

[oneday]

This is ludicrous what this government is doing. Let me guess, they will vote to impeach all 38 of them.

[rubl]

Simply amazing, charged for amending the conts for their own benefit.

How about those who were put in their position by an illegal act?

Which senators were put in their position by an illegal act?

[rubl]

The Thai Supreme (Constitution) Court struck down this supposedly illegal act to amend the Constitution. According to the WSJ, "The majority of the nine judges ruled that making the Senate fully elected would "destroy the checks and balances" and could lead to a seizure of power in the Parliament."

I see two flaws in this reasoning from an American perspective: 1) the "check and balance" against a legislature in Thailand is (was) the Constitution Court, as evidenced by the ability of the court to set aside this particular legislation (mission accomplished, right?); and 2) What the heck is wrong with electing all the Senators?

Oh, I forgot, the appointed Senators are "Good People", as opposed to those elected, who are "corrupt".

I see at least one flaw, reasoning from an American perspective.

[rubl]

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

The Thai Supreme (Constitution) Court struck down this supposedly illegal act to amend the Constitution. According to the WSJ, "The majority of the nine judges ruled that making the Senate fully elected would "destroy the checks and balances" and could lead to a seizure of power in the Parliament."

I see two flaws in this reasoning from an American perspective: 1) the "check and balance" against a legislature in Thailand is (was) the Constitution Court, as evidenced by the ability of the court to set aside this particular legislation (mission accomplished, right?); and 2) What the heck is wrong with electing all the Senators?

Oh, I forgot, the appointed Senators are "Good People", as opposed to those elected, who are "corrupt".

Nothing is wrong with electing all senators - some countries do so. Others like the UK, Ireland, Canada and many more do not elect all senators.

These guys wanted to amend the rules so incumbent senators could re-stand, effectively a "job for life"; and allow wives and children of members of the lower house to stand. Bear in mind senators are independent, not affiliated to political parties (555), and are a key part of the check and balances process.

Of course spouses of PTP MP's who became senators would be totally independent and have free will on all votes

Half of the Senate was ELECTED and the other half is appointed. So going to an all-elected Senate is not such an extreme concept at all. THE USA has a 100% elected Senate and seems somehow to remain a functional democracy.

A sovereign peoples should have the authority to change their constitution. But when constitutions are constantly re-created by military coups to install an unelected military government through overthrow of the peoples' sovereignty, it is the RULE OF TYRANNY that prevails - not democracy.

Pray tell what your post has to do with the topic?

[rubl]

Article 291 of the constitution clearly permits the Parliment to amend the charter and that include the composition of the senates as long as it don't touch on the 2 prohibited changes which are the constitutional monarchy and form of government. Here again, the court is making their own idioscrantic interpretation of the law. Happen too many times.

Here again, the court?

Here it's the NLA deciding a case which was ruled over by the Constitutional Court more than a year ago. Of course the fact that you disagree with the ruling doesn't have any meaningful value, neither your disparaging remark on the court and it's proceedings.

[Robby nz]

Rob by NZ, It's quite simple. To proscute a crime under any law, that law has to have been continuously in force during the time the crime was committed and the time of prosecution. If/ when a law is repealed any crime associated with that law no longer exists.

When lawmakers decide to replace an existing law or legislation, whether in full or part, the new laws will reference the repeal of the former law, thereby creating an unbroken timeline which would allow enforcement subject to the superceded law, if still part of the new law. The repeal and replacement occur simultaneously.

Anything else would be considered retrospective enforcement and if such was allowable would mean that you could be prosecuted for a previous legal act that is now deemed illegal

The director general had to "throw out" the 2007 constitution otherwise he could be charged for instigating the coup. What he didn't realise, in his naive wisdom, that in doing so, he also removed the chance to proscute former crimes. In the days and weeks after, he gradually reinstated sections of the old constitution to allow enforcement of prior crimes, however, if his actions were ever judged by a fully independent court, there was a period of time where possibily no law existed.

The interim constitution was to fix this obvious stuff up in his haste to take over and absolve himself of being charged.

It doesn't have to be right, it just has to be legal as judged or interpreted by a decision of a court.

So according to you and your mate above all crime that was committed under the old constitution but was not prosecuted before it was dumped is now null and void. That would apply to previous constitutions as well.

Like the Koh Tao murders, no cases can be brought in regards the airport seizures, no cases regarding the 2010 riots, no cases about the 2014 protests, the new investigation into the roll of Abhisit and Suthep in 2010, all the corruption within the rice pledging scheme, the 25,000+ cases of corruption the NACC have on their books that would have been forgiven by the amnesty bill and best of all the cases remaining to be heard against Thaksin.

Heck that's almost as good as the amnesty bill.

Your PT mates will be pleased when they get your professional legal advise on this and I am sure the NLA will act on your brilliant assessment.