House speaker recommends fast-track charter rewrite

**Butterfly** · 08-06-2012, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Yingluck likely to skip controversial session today

as usual

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 08:08 AM

Charter amendment is legal : Attorney General - The Nation

"A round of applause for the people today for refusing to bow down to extra-constitutional power, be it tanks, bullets or the scales of justice

(Thida)

Coincidentally, I used the very same analogy in a previous Post on this matter.

Whether tanks in the street, or the judiciary in their chambers seeking to frustrate the wishes of the electorate..............What's the difference.

I also dismiss PADite comments on here, solemnly speaking of these judicial proceedings and those used to persecute Thaksin, as being normative.

Judicial proceedings continue to be coupist rooted and until that changes over time, everything they do will be seen in light of that.

This last CC kerfuffle is as clear an indication of that as anything. They are blatantly seeking to judicially solidify their coupist intentions.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 09:25 AM

Another angle on the CC messing around in legislative prerogatives, is their stated rationale being an accusation of changing an entire Political system.

Suggesting that reversing coupist tampering with the Constitution is changing the entire system of Government, even to the extent of its' highest Institution.

This is an outlandish rationale, perpetrated by undemocratic impulses.

Should that be the case, it pre-supposes that after the Coup, the coupists changed Govtl. system of democracy, and reversing it........well..you get the picture.

Actually, the CC and their supporters picked a very weak and illogical place to "take a stand"

It seems to me that they would have advanced their cause further by challenging individual amendments on their individual merits alone. I don't think challenging a few of the amendments they find most eggregious, would have prompted the massive response of the UDD/Red Shirts, both yesterday and in the immediate future.

This broad-stroke attack on the very legitimacy of a democratically elected Parliament to act on a mandate the electorate was fully informed about, is self-defeating IMHO.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 09:31 AM

PM risks getting caught in charter storm | Bangkok Post: news

PM risks getting caught in charter storm

ANALYSIS: Yingluck faces having to submit bill to King for approval as court probes it for anti-monarchy content

Published: 8/06/2012 at 01:42 AM
Newspaper section: News

If government lawmakers have their way and pass the charter amendment bill in its third and final reading today, the hot potato could land in the prime minister's lap.

A source in Government House said the stalemate could heighten if the bill is taken up and cleared despite a Constitution Court order to suspend debate on the bill while judges look into accusations that the law would pave the way for the overthrow of the monarchy.

The source said Pheu Thai is wary of a possible backlash from a third reading, which could shift political pressure on to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Section 150 of the constitution requires the premier to submit a bill to the King through the Privy Council within 20 days of legislation being approved by parliament.

Senator Kamnoon Sitthisamarn warned that if the bill passes its third reading while the legal dispute over the bill remains unresolved, it could create problems for the King, who would have to endorse the law.
House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont should rise to the occasion and call off the parliament session today, he said.

If Mr Somsak sits on his hands, the country will slip into a political crisis far bigger and more complicated than in the past, the senator warned.

Those who initiated the bill should instead provide the court with arguments refuting the anti-bill petitions, he said.

Already, both sides of the political divide have argued for and against the Constitution Court's injunction. The court insisted debate on the bill should cease until judges establish whether there are grounds to proceed on petitions against the bill _ which complainants say would set the stage for the overthrow of the constitutional monarchy.

Many government MPs and some legal experts took the court to task, claiming it had no power to admit the petitions _ which they say must instead be submitted only to the attorney-general _ or to issue the injunction.

Ruling Pheu Thai Party's MPs have threatened to ignore the injunction and put the bill on today's meeting agenda in parliament.

However, it is not clear if they will follow up on the threat.

PM's Office Minister Woravat Au-apinyakul said MPs will debate whether the injunction binds parliament.

No date for the third reading of the vote has been fixed. However, he said the vote is inevitable and there is no reason to stall it.

The source said some government MPs feel the prime minister should acknowledge the chances of political or legal repercussions if she forwards the bill, heavily mired in legal conflict between Pheu Thai MPs and the Constitution Court.

There is also the question of whether privy councillors will take the bill to the King if Ms Yingluck submits it.

Other government MPs feel the third reading of the vote should be delayed until after the Constitution Court decides if the petitioners have sound grounds for their complaints, and, if they do, concludes its deliberation of the subsequent case.

But the source said the wait may be futile because there is no guarantee the court's verdict would favour the bill.

Also, there is a possibility that current MPs' support for a speedy passage of the bill will ebb if the affair drags on.

Somkit Lertpaithoon, Thammasat University rector and former charter drafter, said the Constitution Court's order must be followed to keep alive the rule of law.

He slammed law academics who advised MPs to defy the court's order.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 09:34 AM

Thai Attorney-General : Constitutional amendments are legal | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Thai Attorney-General : Constitutional amendments are legal

By Bangkok Pundit Jun 08, 2012 10:00AM UTC

The Nation:

The Attorney General’s Office said yesterday that government-sponsored bills to amend the Constitution were not aimed at overthrowing the political system, as has been alleged in petitions filed separately by five groups of people.

Winai Damrongmongkolkul, a spokesman for the agency, told a press conference last night the Attorney-General decided not to forward the petitions to the Constitution Court. “The amendment bills will not result in changes to the political system that are unconstitutional,” he said.

But the agency’s decision would not interfere with decisions by any other agency or organisation, the spokesman said. This referred to the Constitution Court’s decision last week to accept for judicial review five petitions filed directly with the court.

The Bangkok Post:

The decision creates the possibility of conflict between the attorney-general and the Constitution Court, adding a new dimension to what is fast becoming a showdown between the legislative and judicial branches of government.
…
OAG spokesman Winai Damrongmongkolkul said a meeting of state prosecutors concluded the ongoing charter rewrite process is a legitimate exercise of power by the legislative branch.

Mr Winai said state prosecutors agreed that all of the three charter amendment bills _ proposed by the government and its supporters _ have no provisions attempting to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as head of state, nor are they trying to acquire power to rule the country by unconstitutional means.

Mr Winai said state prosecutors concluded there was no need to submit petitions against the bills to the court.

“The six petitions [against the charter amendment bills] do not have enough proof for the court to halt the charter amendment process,” Mr Winai said.

He said the OAG was performing its duty and its judgement did not infringe on the authority of the charter court.

The OAG has full legal authority under Section 68 of the constitution to investigate petitions before submitting them to the court, Mr Winai said.

BP: In case you are thinking that the Attorney-General is some Thaksin crony, he was actually appointed in September 2009 and then approved by the Senate. ASTV Manager was quick to extol his work acting as the government lawyer in the dissolution of Thai Rak Thai and PPP. Nevertheless, He also issued decisions to favour Thaksin, namely the Potjaman tax case.

While numerous legal experts criticizing the Court for accepting the motion, the decision of the Attorney-General not to proceed isolates the Constitutional Court. The Court has come in for strident criticism and well this will only continue.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 09:37 AM

Bangkok Post headlines on this as well.

State attorney backs government

08/06/2012 : State prosecutors have decided against submitting petitions against the government's charter amendment bill to the Constitution Court.

Reds want judges impeached

08/06/2012 : Red shirts yesterday submitted a petition seeking the ouster of the seven Constitution Court judges who ordered the suspension of parliament's deliberations of the charter amendment bill.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 09:37 AM

PM risks getting caught in charter storm | Bangkok Post: news

Actually, this is an extremely interesting case.

It would expose everyone.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 09:42 AM

Reds want judges impeached

08/06/2012 : Red shirts yesterday submitted a petition seeking the ouster of the seven Constitution Court judges who ordered the suspension of parliament's deliberations of the charter amendment bill.

Even should this issue be resolved in their favor, and the CC realizes it has overstepped with its' coupist agenda, I still think they need to go after these guys.

This case clearly demonstrates what they are all about.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 11:28 AM

Parliament to spin political roulette wheel - The Nation

Analysis

Parliament to spin political roulette wheel

Avudh Panananda
The Nation June 8, 2012 8:34 am

Thailand is treading a dangerous path because the anti- and pro-government camps are bent on manipulating the rule book without heeding the referees.

Parliament is expected today to form a crucial decision which will have far reaching consequences on the political landscape.

The issue is not to vote or not to vote on the final passage of the charter change bill.

At stake is the future of the political system - the country may either plunge into mob rule or emerge stronger whereby the differences are settled through intellectual debate.

Last week, the Constitution Court issued, rightly or wrongly, an order to delay the legislative vote on charter change pending a judicial inquiry into the matter.

Even though the high court is sanctioned by the Constitution to interpret and enforce the charter provisions, many legal pundits have stepped out to proclaim themselves to be more authoritative on constitutionality than the seven judges.

The government opponents, particularly the yellow shirts led by the People's Alliance for Democracy and allies, have sided with the high court for putting a damper on what they see as an attempt to topple the political system via the legislature.

The government supporters, particularly the red shirts and other allies of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, have been attacking the judges for what they see as an attempt to invoke the judicial power to usurp the popular mandate vested in the government and legislature.

Anxiety soars as the opposing camps try to sway the sentiment by inciting the crowds.

As if to add insult to injury, the Office of the Attorney General issued a prosecution ruling to dismiss the six complaints on grounds for lacking the cause to suspect foul play on the constitutionality issue.

The attorney general curiously chose to render his legal opinion after the high court had already decided to launch the inquiry.

In defiance of Article 216 of the Constitution which gives an unconditional sanction to a judicial decision, the House Secretariat interpreted that in this particular case, the lawmakers were not duty-bound to abide by the court order.

Both of the opposing sides have opted to look at the high court through their respective political prism.

If key players refuse to abide by the refereeing, then the political system will plunge into the state of unpredictability because everyone has their own rule book.

In the United States, a vote-count crisis happened in 2000 because there were no laws nor precedents to resolve the presidential race. The Supreme Court stepped in and ruled to resolve the crisis.

To this day legal scholars are still debating on the judicial mandate and justification for intervening.

In the US experience, differences are settle in the courts and academic corridors. A political crisis can be thwarted because parties concerned are willing to forego vested interests for the sake of a common good.

Thai leading figures have yet to emulate on lesson from a mature democracy.

The red and yellow shirts should play by the rule instead of descending on the streets to outwit the other.

If the opposing camps refuse to find a common ground for mending fences, then change or no change to the charter is meaningless.

Today the red shirts may have the upper hand to amend the charter. But the yellow shirts will just wait for their turn to undo what the reds strive for.

If Thaksin wants amnesty before reconciling with his opponents, then his freedom will not sustain the ever-shifting political wind.

The Pheu Thai-led majority can vote on and dominate the writing of a new rule book. But the Democrats will rewrite everything after grabbing power.

All sides should bury the hatchet, otherwise an ugly chapter of Thai politics will never end.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 12:04 PM

Today's legislative vote on charter change - The Nation

Today's legislative vote on charter change

The Nation June 8, 2012 9:09 am

The ruling Pheu Thai Party will comply with the today's outcome of a consultation among MPs and senators on whether to vote on charter change, party MP Phiraphan Phalusuk said on Friday.

"If following the consultation, lawmakers decide to cast votes for the third reading of the charter change bill, then there will be a voting," he said.

Phiraphan said the decision will hinge on how MPs and senators draw their legislative conclusion.

The court order to delay voting will not be a crucial factor because it is not in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he said.

The Office of the Attorney General issued a prosecution ruling that there was no cause to suspect the unconstitutionality of the charter change.

The legal advisory panel of Parliament viewed the court order as not binding to the legislature because it was not a verdict.

Opposition whip Pirapan Salirathavibhaga said those pushing for vote in defiance of the court order would have to be hold accountable for their action.

"As sanctioned by the Constitution, any judicial decisions of the Constitution Court are binding to Parliament," he said.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 12:13 PM

^

Originally Posted by "

As sanctioned by the Constitution, any judicial decisions of the Constitution Court are binding to Parliament," he said.

Coupists built this intention into their constitution for self-serving reasons, and is all the more reason to eradicate it, as all remnants of the "coup" should be.

I understand it is becoming an accepted reality, that the UDD/Red Shirts vociforous gathering against this subtle attempt at yet another 'judicial coup', is giving the PTP some backbone.

They know the consequences of waffling on this one. They can do that all they want on most issues, but not reform of the coup constitution. This constitution is an existential threat to them, and if they don't realize it, the UDD/Red Shirts are clarifying it for them.

**hazz** · 08-06-2012, 12:19 PM

Going to be interesting to see how then choose to handle this.

I would have thought the best option would be to comply with the constitutional courts order and to continue to attack the legality, logic and correctness of that order by all means possible, including the impeachment and replacement of the judges concerned.

To do otherwise gives these judges a branch they could use to pull themselves out the hole and unpleasant hole they have just dug for themselves.

^Calgary, you will find that its normal for constitutional governments to be bound by the decisions of their constitutional courts. There quite a few exceptions, china comes to mind, and in these places you find that the constitution is simply a piece of paper that is useless for anything more than wiping your bum.
the issue here is not the supremacy of the CC over parliament, but the professionalism and impartiality of the judges in it.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 12:25 PM

Parliament to spin political roulette wheel

Parliament is expected today to form a crucial decision which will have far reaching consequences on the political landscape.

YUP!

At stake is the future of the political system - the country may either plunge into mob rule..........."

As in rule by coupists or the electorate.

Its really not all that complicated.

[QUOTE=""]"....many legal pundits have stepped out to proclaim themselves to be more authoritative on constitutionality than the seven judges. [/QUOTE]

YUP!

And they are.

Doesn't take much to exceed those CC guys.

If key players refuse to abide by the refereeing, then the political system will plunge into the state of unpredictability........."

The coup did that actually.

This reverses the 'unpredictability' of the thing.

Thai leading figures have yet to emulate on lesson from a mature democracy.

Such as respecting the choices of the electorate as being decisive.

The Pheu Thai-led majority can vote on and dominate the writing of a new rule book. But the Democrats will rewrite everything after grabbing power.

Yup. Such is the way of electoral democracy.

Idiot Romney is going to repeal Obama's hard fought health reform legislation. The electorate will decide if that happens.

Same here. If the Democrat Party has intentions of resurecting Coupist stuff, the electorate will decide if they will ever be elected on that basis.

Can't argue with that, as LB would say.

BTW, haven't seen LB lately....hope he is OK.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 03:08 PM

Kokaew threatens to cut court budget - The Nation

Kokaew threatens to cut court budget

June 8, 2012 1:23 pm

Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong on Friday urged the Constitution Court to cancel its injunction on the legislative vote for charter change in exchange for avoiding impeachment and budget cut.

"The red shirts will stop the impeachment drive against the judges if the court order on legislative voting is dropped," he said.

Kokaew also hinted that the House committee vetting the 2013 Budget Bill might cut the high court's non-esstential expenditures, such as the spendings on security services for the court buildings and personnel.

The Nation

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 03:09 PM

^ Threats and coercion?

WTF?

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 03:12 PM

Seven judges of the Constitution Court should resign: Weng - The Nation

Seven judges of the Constitution Court should resign: Weng

June 8, 2012 1:59 pm

Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn on Friday called for the resignation of seven Constitution Court judges for issuing an injunction for the legislative vote on charter change.

Weng, accompanied by some 40 red shirts, lodged his statement at the high court.

"The seven judges had acted in violation of the Constitution and should assume responsibility by resigning," he said.

He said before the seven judges stepped down, they should cancel the court order as an act of remorse.

The seven are high court president Wasan Soypisudh and six judges, Jaran Pukditanakul, Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet, Boonsong Kulbupar and Suphot Kaimuk. They are also being targetted by the red shirts for impeachment.

The two remaining judges, Chut Chonlavorn and Udomsak Nitimontree, are the dissenting voices opposing the judicial intervention.

The Nation

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 03:13 PM

^ So the 7 he doesn't like need to resign.

But the 2 who are on his side can stay?

WTF?

**DrB0b** · 08-06-2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ So the 7 he doesn't like need to resign.

But the 2 who are on his side can stay?

WTF?

TF is that the seven who upheld the action of accepting petitions which had not been forwarded by the attorney general should resign or be impeached as they are clearly either incompetent or suborned. The two who dissented, i.e. those who actually seem to understand the law, would have no need to step down.

It's crystal clear, it's even stated directly in your post

"The seven judges had acted in violation of the Constitution and should assume responsibility by resigning," he said.

There is absolutely no need for such fabrications as

So the 7 he doesn't like need to resign

Those who overstepped the bounds of their power, bypassed the legal procedures, and showed that they are either incompetent or prejudiced SHOULD resign. No country should have people like these in the highest courts. Even the Attorney General, whose history seems to show a general impartiality, has (diplomatically) expressed his dismay at the actions of these judges and has stated that if the petitions had been presented to his department (as they should have been) then they would not have been passed passed to the CC as the accusations in the positions were utterly groundless.

Even the ultra-royalist and arch-Thaksin-hater Kaewsan has said that

If we consider the case in a purely legal light, it is correct _ as Worachet Pakeerut mentioned _ that the court does not have authority to suspend parliament’s readings of the constitution amendment bills.(BP)

Of course, Kawsan does not intend that as a criticism. He, like many others of his ilk, has absolutely no respect for the law and would prefer to see all such decisions and actions made on a purely political basis and the law be damned.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ Threats and coercion?

WTF?

YUP!..............

Use whatever means at the disposal of the elected Govt. to 'cut those boys down to size".

Ya play with the bull, ya get the horn........if they have one.

Korkeaw thinks they do.

**Calgary** · 08-06-2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ So the 7 he doesn't like need to resign.

But the 2 who are on his side can stay?

WTF?

YUP!

Any other questions?

**Thaihome** · 08-06-2012, 04:54 PM

Threatening Judges Who Defy Thaksin

Posted on June 8, 2012 by admin

From Voice of Taksin, February 15, 2010
The headline reads: The lists of the judges to give the verdict in the case involving the seizure of 7.6 billion baht

From left to right are the judges’ names: Thanit, Pairoj, Somsak, Prateep, Adisak, Riththep, Pithak
[The article is a list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of each judge. This comes after articles on Oliver Cromwell, punishing judges at the Nuremberg trials, and assassination.]

The recent intimidation of judges by revealing their phone numbers is nothing new. In the buildup to the 2010 protests in Bangkok, Red Shirt publications listed personal contact details of judges involved in Thaksin’s assets seizure along with articles detailing historical assassinations of the unjust.

Traditionally, Thai governments have expected to be totally exempt from pressure from the public or other checks and balances once they are in power. The independent organizations and judiciary oversight enshrined in the 1997 constitution were an anathema to many in the Thai political world.

As was witnessed during the Thai Rak Thai government era, subverting or otherwise exerting control over any possible check and balance on the sitting government was a priority.

In subsequent years, the activities of the judiciary in disbanding the Thai Rak Thai and People Power Parties, confiscating Thaksin’s assets, and now halting the government from amending the constitution means the courts remain in the cross-hairs of the pro-Thaksin camp.

Independent checks and balances are still a new concept in Thailand and are often lumped into the same group as the shadowy and unnameable extra-political forces that continue to exert influence on the political world.

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.” Similar thinking can be seen in the nascent democracies developing in Pakistan, Venezuela, and Russia.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ Threats and coercion?

WTF?

YUP!..............

Use whatever means at the disposal of the elected Govt. to 'cut those boys down to size".

Ya play with the bull, ya get the horn........if they have one.

Korkeaw thinks they do.

Well, yesterday certain people threatened to publish the addresses and contact details of the 7 judges...they later apologised.

While the constitution court is clearly biased, there has to be some respect for the law.

oh, and you don't threaten and use coercion on judges, as that is nothing better than a mafia practice.

Do away with the current judges (who were appointed as a result of the 2007 charter) and appoint unbiased judges certainly (but where are they?). But the damage this is doing to the court system here has far reaching implications....and may have severe consequences.

Let's just say, that the judges resign, as indeed they should. They have clearly demonstrated a bias which is unacceptable for people in such an important position.

Now, the constitution court has been around for a while and was a feature of the 1997 constitution. Obviously it has a role in ensuring the government of the day can not run the country as a dictatorship. One of the 'checks and balances' of any democracy.

So, where do we go from here?

New bunch of judges? Who chooses them?

Back to the 15 of the 1997 constitution (7 from the judiciary, 8 from the senate)? Or 9 from the judiciary as we have now (2007 constitution).

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 05:06 PM

High court rules out prosecution review on charter change - The Nation

High court rules out prosecution review on charter change

June 8, 2012 4:13 pm

The Constitution Court on Friday issued a statement rebutting the prosecution review on charter change bill, saying the decision by the attorney general has no linkage to the judicial inquiry into the draft legislation.

Even though the attorney general had decided not to prosecute the case, this was a mandate vested in the prosecution but had no bearing on the judiciary, the high court said in its statement.

Article 68 of the Constitution prescribes for complainants to bring any attempts to topple the democratic rule with the King as head of state to the attention of the attorney general for fact-finding checks and to petition the Constitution Court for review.

The Nation

**Butterfly** · 08-06-2012, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

indeed, the monkey school of thought, promoted here by sab and Calgary

**StrontiumDog** · 08-06-2012, 05:08 PM

Admiral P trying to block charter change: Pheu Thai spokesman - The Nation

Admiral P trying to block charter change: Pheu Thai spokesman

June 8, 2012 3:40 pm

An admiral with the initial P was the mastermind of a plot to derail the charter change bill, Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said on Friday.

"Retired admiral P has joined hands with the government opponents in a conspiracy," he said.

Prompong said the admiral was pulling strings designed to project the escalating conflict and chaos in the legislature in order to pave way for an intervention to usurp power.

He said the public should not fall prey to such a political ploy. The charter change as per Article 291 of the Constitution will not topple the democratic rule with the King as head of state as alleged, he said.

The Nation

Thread: House speaker recommends fast-track charter rewrite

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions