Thai legal expert weighs benefits of judiciary handling political crises

[webfact]

Legal expert weighs benefits of judiciary handling political crises
JEERAPONG PRASERTPONKRUNG
KHANITTHA THEPKAJORN,
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- DEPUTY PM Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday that there were both pros and cons to getting the judiciary to deal with crises, adding that giving the job to certain organisations was also, in principle, a good idea. The previously discarded charter draft had put forward the idea of setting up a National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC) to handle the task.

Wissanu, a noted legal expert, said the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) was trying to make the most of existing mechanisms to steer the country out of a crisis and the public may wonder why this job is being given to the courts, and not other branches as well.

The CDC proposed that the judiciary use its power to help end crises - a job that was meant to be given to the NSRRC in the previous draft. Now the CDC is contemplating whether it should empower the Constitutional Court, or have the Justice and Administrative courts in on the job as well. The issue has not been resolved yet.

Wissanu said in principle that it was a good idea to have some organisations help end crises, but added that it was not necessarily a formula of success to place all expectations on one particular organisation. He said the idea of getting courts to do the task was very specific, and did not aim to replace the now-dropped NSRRC.

That committee, he said, was initially proposed to steer reform and reconciliation - a task that courts might not be able to achieve outside of a legal framework. Reconciliation, in particular, he said, should fall to the National Reform Steering Assembly.

However, he stopped short of comparing the NSRRC and the courts in the context of a crisis and saying whether the courts would take over the task of ending problems.

Wissanu said the NSRRC did not include court presidents as the judiciary had withdrawn because it wished to stay within its legal boundary. Hence, he said, the CDC should consider the effect bringing courts back into the scene would have.

However, he seemed positive that the country now has the chance to write anything that could be considered best for it into the charter, adding that it wasn't a dead end yet. Asked whether the process of charter writing this time was more stressful, he admitted that though he has some worries, the constitution should satisfy the people and be acceptable.

Wissanu said it would be worth studying constitutions of some developed countries, like the United States, to see why they can enforce the supreme law without amending it too often.

Meanwhile, the CDC also resolved to allow the opposition to call a no-confidence debate, reasoning that at least this would help the public learn about certain issues. Also at a meeting with the National Human Rights Commission, the drafters said the commission would not be merged with the Office of the Ombudsman and that it would also consider more representatives from the civil sector.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-expert-weighs-benefits-of-judiciary-handling-30274945.html


-- The Nation 2015-12-15

[Srikcir]

The idea that there must be an extranational or extraconstitutional power to help end crises is fundamentally flawed. So any CDC proposal will also be flawed.

Certainly there are a number of constitutions in the world that can show how "crises" can be handled without a coup d'etat by the military, courts, or so-called independent organizations. Japan's democratic constitutional monarchy would be a perfect comparison to Thailand's tradition and culture.

But CDC Chairman Meechai forbids such examination as governance of Thailand is just too unique to any other country in the world. When all else fails, failure becomes the standard. Meechai's final charter will become the Rube Goldberg of constitutions to preserve an obsolete autocracy.

[fred Kubasa]

G'wan ! There are no Thai " legal experts " !

[jayboy]

Here's an idea.When the Thai people make a political choice enshrined in the results of a democratic election, why don't those who don't like the result accept it graciously and look to find a way of getting back into power in an acceptable democratic manner?

Then the judiciary would be able to do its job properly - rather like the Supreme Court in the US - rather than being "directed" by those who can't bear being thwarted by the wishes of most Thais.

Edited December 15, 2015 by jayboy

[chilli42]

Lawyers, liars and layers cripple effectiveness and progress. Sounds like a plan to let all three loose.

[Thai at Heart]

The idea that there must be an extranational or extraconstitutional power to help end crises is fundamentally flawed. So any CDC proposal will also be flawed.

Certainly there are a number of constitutions in the world that can show how "crises" can be handled without a coup d'etat by the military, courts, or so-called independent organizations. Japan's democratic constitutional monarchy would be a perfect comparison to Thailand's tradition and culture.

But CDC Chairman Meechai forbids such examination as governance of Thailand is just too unique to any other country in the world. When all else fails, failure becomes the standard. Meechai's final charter will become the Rube Goldberg of constitutions to preserve an obsolete autocracy.

Triple like for this. They can't see that the system has to solve itself and decisions from parliament have primacy. They just can't stand it.