Constitutional Court agrees to review clause in Public Referendum Act

BANGKOK, 9 June 2016 (NNT) - The Constitutional Court has agreed to review a clause in the Public Referendum Act as petitioned by the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Constitutional Court has issued a statement, which says that the judges have accepted the petition of the Office of the Ombudsman to review a clause in Article 61 of the public referendum law, which it is claimed, excessively limits the rights and freedoms of the people in sharing their opinions.

The Office of the Ombudsman has questioned whether the clause involved may have an impact on the core essence of the rights and freedoms of the people of Thailand, and as such may be in conflict with Article 4 of the Provisional Constitution.

The court said that, after thorough consideration, the judges agreed that the petition could be accepted and resolved to act in accordance with it before issuing a letter to inform the Office of the Ombudsman of this resolution and requesting all related documents from the Election Commission and the National Legislative Assembly to help with the review.


-- NNT 2016-06-09

Charter court is set to rule on constitutionality of Section 61



BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court has accepted for consideration the petition from the Ombudsman to rule on the constitutionality of paragraph two of Section 61 of the Referendum Act.

The ombudsman is unsure whether the provision in question amounts to unnecessary restriction of free expressions as specified in Section of the interim constitution B.E. 2557.

The Constitutional Court has demanded the ombudsman to submit relevant documents from the Election Commission and the National Legislative Assembly pertaining to the rationale for the drafting of Section 61’s paragraph two to the court within seven days

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/charter-court-set-rule-constitutionality-section-61/


-- Thai PBS 2016-06-09

Seems like the constitutional Court as in previous times is still an independent thorn in the side of the Administration , to accept the petition from the Ombudsman in relation to a clause in article 61 which in their opinion limits rights and freedoms is indeed stepping on toes, as this clause was deliberately put in place to stifle freedom of speech and erode the rights of the individual , relating to a totalitarian government , a typical military junta maneuver, the sad part is why didn't the court raise this issue themselves, as on many occasions they did with the former PTP government......................................................

The Constitutional Court has demanded the ombudsman to submit relevant documents from the Election Commission and the National Legislative Assembly pertaining to the rationale for the drafting of Section 61’s paragraph two

I don't believe the Ombudsman has subpoena powers. If the EC and NLA obstruct delivery of relevant documents, does then the court throw out the case? Why doesn't the court directly order the EC and NLA to submit all relevant documents to the court for its review? Failure to do so would be contempt of the court.

Is anyone daft enough to bet me that this lot will find in favour of whatever-it-is-that-the-government-wants-them-to-do?

Got to repay the extra powers Kim is thinking of giving them.

Anyone?

Winnie

Edited June 9, 201610 yr by Winniedapu

I don't have much confidence in this court ruling withtout bias or political agenda.

It has never held a military coup as unconstitutional even when such act is specifically stated in constitutions as illegal.

It respects the junta's abolishment of previous royally endorsed constitutions

it respects junta self-written interim or provisional charters

It respects the absolute power of the coup leaders

It respects the formation of the junta-appointed NLA in violation to the 2007 Constitution

It respects the military provisional charters that are endorsed without approval of the Thai electorate

It renders unconstitutional decisions

Its origins are junta-appointed judges

The Thai Constitutional Court has little connection with the protection of democratic governance. In the final analysis the Constitutional Court seems to be more about its continued preservation for job security and power. I expect that its decision on the referendum will be greatly influenced to that end.

The Constitutional Court will issue a "verdict" sometime after 7 August 2016, but prior to the next coup.

Seriously, a "face-saving" decision will be to somewhat "liberalize", and more clearly define with examples, the more ambiguous portions of the Referendum Act.

Example: Some T-shirts are OK, while others are not.

One would think that the NLA would vet legislation with various/sundry "constitutional experts" prior to voting for it 180:0?

Oh well, maybe not.