Thread: House speaker recommends fast-track charter rewrite

So, lets have this REF if we don't get enough support we will change it anyway.
Monkeys being led by monkeys.

PM: We'll seek consensus on constitution - The Nation

PM: We'll seek consensus on constitution

The Nation December 31, 2012 1:00 am


Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has downplayed concerns that changing the Constitution will cause turmoil, saying efforts will be made in the coming year to engage the public to reach a consensus ahead of the actual rewriting.

Yingluck argues that the new charter will not be ready for enactment within a year as has been speculated and that charter amendments are not being designed to grant amnesty to her brother, fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"At this juncture, the government-appointed working group is conducting a review before recommending a best option on how to amend the charter," she said.

One of the options is to hold a referendum vote before activating the charter rewriting process, she said. Should this option be chosen, the working group will outline how the vote should be organised.

Other options include bypassing the referendum and just amending provision by provision in lieu of an overhaul of the whole Constitution. If the referendum is bypassed, Parliament would cast the final vote on the charter amendment bill to pave the way for formation of a charter drafting assembly.

The prime minister said her government wants to promulgate a people's charter to replace the one overseen by coup-makers.

She claimed that critics should not draw a hasty conclusion about an ulterior motive to rescue Thaksin from his legal predicament because no one in the government or the opposition could wield influence over charter writers, elected to form the CDA.

"I call on all sides to think hard about the end result - what the people will gain from the new charter - rather than bickering about the process of rewriting."

She voiced optimism that the country would eventually push through an improved charter after overcoming differences over the rewriting format.

While conceding that Thaksin had his ideas on the matter, she said her government would finalise its decision after factoring in the opinions of all sides.

The charter amendments might take years to complete and next year would be just the beginning of change, she said.

Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij said he expected the government to choose the least controversial option to push for charter change.

Nikom said the Senate would be willing to support the option that leads to social peace, reminding the government that senators would not condone any bullying tactics.

The holding of a referendum might be risky but to compensate, the authorities could step up an awareness campaign to sway public sentiment, he said, adding that this may be the only way to reconcile differences over a charter rewrite.

Democrat MP Ong-art Klampai-boon said the main opposition party would closely monitor government efforts to amend the charter. He said he had doubts that the government could build a consensus on the planned charter amendments.

-----
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingn...-amend-charter

PM: No rush to amend charter

• Published: 30/12/2012 at 01:01 PM
• Online news:

The government will not rush to amend the constitution but will give a higher priority to restoring the climate of reconciliation in the country, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said on Sunday.

"Building a climate of reconcilation that is free from conflict is much more important than amending the constitution in order to strengthen the country's economy and security. Constitutional amendment is also important but not urgent. It would not be good if amendments lead to a conflict," the prime minister said.

But Ms Yingluck said a working committee is considering whether to hold a referendum before the amendment, as well as to recommend whether to amend the charter section by section or proceed with voting on the charter amendment bill now with parliament and awaiting its third reading.

The committee had not yet made a definite decision, which should be acceptable to the people, she said.

The prime minister said if the government decided to hold a referendum, the process would be time-consuming and a new constitution might not be seen in 2013.

She stressed the need to amend the 2007 charter because it came from a military coup.

A new constitution should come from the people and guarantee the balance of the three main sovereign powers - the executive, legistive and judicial branches, she added.

Ms Yingluck said she had told the committee studying charter amendment to clearly explain to the people what problems had been caused by the 2007 constitution.

Asked whether former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's support for a charter referendum would have an influence on the government's decision, Ms Yingluck said the government regarded Thaksin as a citizen and would take his advice under consideration the same as it does with parliament, the Election Commission, political parties and the people.

"This matter [constitutional amendment] will not lead to a state of chaos as happened in Egypt because the government has the objective of pushing the country forward," the prime minister said.

Pheu Thai stalls charter change | Bangkok Post: news

Pheu Thai stalls charter change

Amendment bid on hold as govt seeks stability

• Published: 7/01/2013 at 12:12 AM
• Online news: Politics

NAKHON RATCHASIMA: Core Pheu Thai Party figures agreed Sunday to temporarily withhold the bids for constitutional amendment and the national reconciliation bill for the sake of the government stability, a party source disclosed Sunday.


Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra aims an air rifle at a target at a fair organised for Pheu Thai Party members at a resort in Khao Yai, Nakhon Ratchasima, yesterday evening. Earlier in the day, the party held its seminar at another venue in the province. The meeting was dominated by an intense debate on charter amendment. PATTANAPONG HIRUNARD

The source said the ruling party assessed the situation,estimated it would not win the amendment battle, and decided it had better take a step back.

The party will proceed when it had a mandate from the public, who will first be told how they would benefit from the charter change.

The party leaders' views were expressed at a Pheu Thai seminar in Khao Yai, during which members fiercely debated how to proceed with the charter amendment.

No consensus was reached after the meeting, which was chaired by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The source said the core leaders' decision to delay the charter amendment bid would frustrate red-shirt leaders facing serious charges in connection with the 2010 political violence.

"Thaksin is aware that if he persists, the government will fall apart," said the source, referring to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, de facto leader of Pheu Thai and Ms Yingluck's elder brother.

Pheu Thai leader Charupong Ruangsuwan cautioned party MPs to tread carefully in a speech to open the seminar.

He said a snare had been laid for those trying to amend the charter, making the amendment process difficult.

Mr Charupong, also the interior minister, said the 2007 constitution was undemocratic. He said it was designed to weaken the checks-and-balances system, boost the power of independent agencies and undermine political parties, while it failed to engage the public.

It also proved to be an obstacle to international cooperation, he said.

"The charter and the referendum law have laid a trap for attempts to amend the charter," he said.

"The 2007 charter is the heart of the conflict and poses a threat to stability and national administration."

Chusak Sirinil, a member of the coalition committee studying charter amendments, said no matter how long it took, the charter amendment would eventually proceed.

He said amending the charter section by section would not be easy either.

"Try to change how the members of independent organisations are selected and you can see trouble coming. It's not going to be easy," he said.

Ms Yingluck Sunday told the Pheu Thai members to "think positive" as the government would continue to sort out differences.

She said it would take great efforts to address issues, some of which were "structural problems".

"We will need to take a step back and talk it out to find the causes [of the problems], but not to create more divisiveness. Otherwise [the problems] will never come to an end," she said.

A heated debate ensued after the forum was opened for participants to express their views. Red-shirt members in the party strongly criticised a working group's proposal to commission legal experts at leading national universities to study how the government should proceed with the charter change.

Leading the attack were former MP Adisorn Piangket, list-MP Weng Tochirakarn and Chatuporn Prompan, who insisted that the party push ahead with the vote on the third and final reading of a constitutional amendment bill, now pending in parliament.

"Parliament needs to perform its duty. As lawmakers, you should quit if you are afraid to do your job," Mr Adisorn said.

Mr Chatuporn said the government should save the 2 billion baht it planned to spend to organise a public referendum on the constitutional amendment by sending two questions to the Constitutional Court instead.

"Ask the court whether it has actually ordered the referendum be held before the third reading vote, and whether it prohibits parliament to take the final vote on the amendment draft. These two simple questions cost 1 billion baht each. We could save the money if the court answers them," he said.

Pongthep Thepkanchana, deputy prime minister and education minister, said the Constitutional Court was unlikely to answer these questions.

Meanwhile, a former charter writer commented Sunday that wholesale charter amendment is prohibited and a referendum to decide if it should proceed is probably unconstitutional.

Speaking at a forum on the political situation in 2013, Sqn Ldr Prasong Soonsiri said a provision is in place to prevent the abolition of the 2007 constitution.

Any amendments must be carried out section by section, he said.

"Section 165 says a referendum on issues deemed against the constitution is not allowed," Sqn Ldr Prasong said.

"So I am warning here that a proposed referendum could be unconstitutional."

Sqn Ldr Prasong chaired a committee tasked with drafting the 2007 charter, which followed the coup the previous year which ousted Thaksin.

Sqn Ldr Prasong, a staunch Thaksin critic, believes Section 309 is at the heart of the constitution amendment effort.

The section endorses the investigation into alleged corruption cases against Thaksin and his government by the coup-appointed Asset Scrutiny Committee and protects the 2006 coup-makers from prosecution.

He said an amnesty law was likely to be pushed when the amendment to Section 309 succeeded. He warned that the government's alleged abuses of power risked renewed political violence.

He said the country was heading to what he termed a "tom yum poo" crisis, brought on by populist policies such as the 300-baht minimum daily wage.


-----
Abac: Charter change unfavourable | Bangkok Post: news

Abac: Charter change unfavourable

• Published: 6/01/2013 at 10:17 AM
• Online news: Politics

Most people think the ongoing conflict and disunity afflicting society will not be brought to an end by constitutional amendment, which instead will lead to even wider divisions, according the result of an Abac Poll on Sunday.

The poll was conducted on 2,289 people aged 18 an up between Jan 2-5 in Bangkok, Samut Sakhon, Kanchanaburi, Suphan Buri and Samut Prakan in the Central region; Phayao, Phetchabun and Chiang Mai in the North; Nakhon Phanom, Sakon Nakhon, Surin, Buri Ram, Khon Kaen and Nakhon Ratchasima in the Northeast; and Chumphon, Trang and Nakhon Si Thammarat in the South.

Asked whether conflicts in society would come to an end after a charter amendment, most or 85.4% said "no" while 14.6% said "yes".

Most or 86.6% of the respondents believed the amendment would instead lead to a wider conflict, while 13.4% thought otherwise.

Asked what they want if the constitution is to be amended, 87.8% said the amendment must be for the interests of the people throughout the country, not individuals.

Asked what should be done first between amending the charter and correcting politicians' behaviour, 89.6% said politicians should be dealt with first.


-----
UDD consults court on referendum | Bangkok Post: news

UDD consults court on referendum

• Published: 6/01/2013 at 09:41 PM
• Online news: Politics

The United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship leader Tida Tawornseth will ask the Constitution Court this week to clarify its suggestion about holding a referendum prior to any charter change.

UDD core leader Jatuporn Prompan revealed the move Sunday at a seminar held by the Pheu Thai Party at a hotel in Khao Yai, Nakhon Ratchasima.

During the evening session when the 2007 constitution amendment bill was being discussed, red-shirt Pheu Thai MPs reportedly raised the contentious issue that has divided the party members on whether the third and final reading vote on the bill should go ahead.

Mr Jatuporn said he agreed with Pheu Thai secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai’s suggestion that the party should seek the help of leading academics and give them 45-60 days to study the charter bill and advise the party on how to proceed with it.

“But at the same time, we [the UDD] will also submit a letter to the Constitution Court seeking clarity over its referendum recommendation. Because the referendum will cost more than two billion baht, we should ask [the judges],” Mr Jatuporn said.

He said Mrs Tida would ask the court two questions: whether it wanted the parliament to conduct a referendum before the final reading of the bill; and whether it was prohibiting the parliament from voting on the bill in the final reading.

He called on the party to wait for the court’s response before deciding to hold the referendum.

“The two answers from the court are worth one billion baht each,” he said.

The Constitution Court ruled on July 13 last year that the bill should be suspended and suggested the government put it to a public vote, noting that the 2007 constitution was approved by popular referendum.

Pheu Thai members are still divided on how to proceed with the charter amendment. Some support a plan to hold a referendum, some want to go ahead with the third reading vote on the amendment bill, now stalled in the House, and others want the charter to be amended section by section.

Some party members were concerned that if the bill was passed without a referendum first being held, the government could face legal difficulties if a Constitution Court challenge was launched.

Universities' input sought on rewrite - The Nation

Universities' input sought on rewrite

Praphan Jindalertudomdee
Olan Lertrudtanadumrongkul
The Nation
January 7, 2013 1:00 am

Ruling party seeks to ease public's concerns

The push to amend the Constitution appeared to face further delays yesterday, as the Pheu Thai Party unveiled a proposal to have universities study how best to change the charter.

Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai said yesterday at a seminar in Khao Yai, Nakhon Ratchasima that the party realised that all methods of changing the charter - voting on a third reading of the charter change bill; amend the charter article by article; and holding a national referendum - faced opposition.

Phumtham said the party would ask the Law faculties at Chulalongkorn, Thammasat, Ramkhamhaeng and Sukhothai Thammathirat universities to find an answer on how best to proceed with amending the charter. The time frame for the studies could be on the order of 45-60 days.

"Finding a solution is urgent, but not too urgent. We'll continue to rewrite the charter but we want the academics to help spread the idea among the public or make them aware of the issue as much as they can," Phumtham said.

A party source said key party figures had agreed to delay Pheu Thai's push on two hot issues - charter amendment and the reconciliation bill - in order to maintain the government's stability for as long as possible. They agreed that the government and the party should "clear the landmines" instead of pushing hard on the two issues.

"We should wait for the right time to propose them again. We have to seek the public's opinion through a national referendum," the source said.

During the seminar, several Pheu Thai MPs expressed their opinions on charter change. Most of them, such as red-shirt leaders and party-list MPs Weng Tojirakarn, Jatuporn Phomphan and Korkaew Pikulthong, urged the ruling party to continue to vote on the charter amendment bill in the third reading. They all opposed a national referendum.

Deputy Commerce Minister Natthawut Saikua said the country is in trouble because of the independent bodies established under the current Constitution. The sovereignty of the country was supposed to divide into only three branches - administrative, legislative and judicial - but the independent constitutional organisation exercised power as if they were a fourth branch of government, he said.

The independent bodies, such as the Election Commission, the anti-graft commission and the Constitution Court, had toppled many governments including those of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, he said.

"If you want to destroy Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's government, I will fight to the death to save it," he told the Pheu Thai Party seminar in Khao Yai yesterday.

Pheu Thai Party members should tell voters that constitutional amendment would not be done for any particular group or person but for the people, Natthawut said. The excessive power of some independent organisation means Parliament now cannot even vote on the third reading to pave the way for amendment, he said.

Yingluck urged members of the party to think positively in order to find the best solutions for the country. In 2006, the power that had belonged to the people was delivered into other hands, so as the party that comes from people, Pheu Thai must return power to them, she said.

-----
Court spokesman dismisses red move - The Nation

Court spokesman dismisses red move

THE NATION January 8, 2013 1:00 am

The Constitution Court refused to respond yesterday to questions by the red shirts on whether there is an obligation to hold a national referendum before proceeding with changes to the charter.

Pimol Thammapitakpong, chief spokesman of the top court, said it was not the Constitution Court's duty to clarify issues that the red shirts want it to explain. He said the court did not have the authority to make such clarification - it only has the authority to rule which laws violate the Constitution.

Red-shirt leaders will ask the court this week if its ruling last year said that a public referendum should be held before Parliament votes on the third reading of a bill on amending the charter - or whether the court banned Parliament from voting in a third reading.

The government, meanwhile, will discuss its plan on amending the charter with the Election Commission on Friday, PM's Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn said. The EC would be invited to Government House to discuss Pheu Thai Party's resolution on the matter decided on Sunday, he said.

A conclusion on a national referendum about changing the charter would be known within two weeks, Varathep said.

Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has said Pheu Thai's move to get another Constitution Court ruling on changing the charter was just a tactic to buy time.

He said the public had no doubt about the Constitution Court ruling but they want the government to delay the process since it is not urgent.

At the Pheu Thai seminar on Sunday, it was proposed that educational institutions study ways to amend the charter.

The Opposition leader also responded to former-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's remark that politics this year would be a struggle between wisdom, lip-service and diction. Abhisit believed politics would be more about abuse of power by those in high authority.

"The government is actually the one that uses diction that has polarised the country such as the word Ammart (bureaucrats) and Prai (servant). If Thaksin wants to be Ravana, let him be,'' he said.

Meanwhile, the Nitirat Group of lawyers at Thammasat University yesterday proposed its version of charter amendment that includes amnesty for politically-motivated wrongdoers while a 5-member committee will be appointed to consider.

-----
Govt's approach to charter change to be slow, cautious - The Nation

BURNING ISSUE

Govt's approach to charter change to be slow, cautious

Avudh Panananda
The Nation January 8, 2013 1:00 am

The ruling Pheu Thai Party will not risk its political stability over the |charter rewrite and the fate of the 2007 Constitution is to remain in a state of flux for the government's remaining term in office.

Pheu Thai remains committed to overhauling the charter's provisions. But it will bring about change only if and when it feels assured that the amendments will not backfire and trigger the government's downfall.

The upside for deferring charter change is that this year will not see turbulence triggered by the debate.

The downside is that Pheu Thai and its red-shirt allies are bound to face a growing schism despite attempts to mask their differences.

At the conclusion of his party's two-day seminar over the weekend in Nakhon Ratchasima, Pheu Thai secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai agreed to a delay from 45 to 60 days to allow time for academics to review the next move on amending the Constitution.

Even if the academics can complete their report before the deadline and there is no further delay, it is unlikely that the charter rewrite, regardless of which option is chosen, will be activated this year because of the cumbersome preparations.

Should the rewrite commence next year, the completion of the draft plus the necessary referendum would occur in 2015.

That timing would coincide with an election year, and it is unclear whether the government would be willing to confront two challenges, its re-election bid and its push for promulgating the new Constitution, at the same time.

A realistic and safe date to amend the charter might be in the government's second term rather than this year or next.

The opposition movement, including the Democrats and the People's Alliance for Democracy, will rely on litigation as a key weapon to derail charter amendments.

A legal setback, if it happens, would not just affect the rewriting process but would yield dire consequences for Pheu Thai. The party could be penalised by disbandment.

Pheu Thai's best legal minds spent months weighing various options but could not find a risk-free solution.

In the first scenario, the ruling party could force a vote on the final passage of the charter amendment bill, paving a way for the formation of the Constitution Drafting Assembly.

MP and red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn has strongly supported the vote. If he had his way, the charter would have already been rewritten.

After the Constitution Court's July ruling on the bill, Pheu Thai found with dismay that it could not muster sufficient votes in the Senate. The party would have to wait four to six years for the upper chamber to turn over a new leaf.

This is the main reason Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has switched to favour the route for a referendum.

Under the second scenario, Pheu Thai would hold the referendum to consult and seek the voters' consent ahead of amending the Constitution.

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is optimistic that there would be no problem in mustering some 24 million votes needed for a referendum victory. But a large number of Pheu Thai strategists have serious doubts.

In past elections,?? Referendums?? the ruling party won no more than 15 million votes.

For the third scenario, Pheu Thai could opt for amending the charter by provision in lieu of an overhaul. This would be cumbersome and could trigger a never-ending storm when each contentious issue comes up for debate.

Given its popularity, Pheu Thai may be right in seeing time on its side. But the question is whether the red shirts would be willing to allow the ruling party to seize up on charter change.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Any amendments must be carried out section by section, he said.

I don't recall amendments to the legitimate democratic Constitution being carried out section by section after the military putsch.

Originally Posted by sabang

I don't recall amendments to the legitimate democratic Constitution being carried out section by section after the military putsch.

actually, would have been a better thing to do in that regard, just patch up the controversial sections of the 1997 version that gave too much authoritarian power to that wannabee dictator, Thaksin

^
That's always been the best answer.

Nitirat calls for red amnesty | Bangkok Post: news

Nitirat calls for red amnesty

• Published: 8/01/2013 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The Nitirat group has proposed that a political amnesty for red-shirt protesters be part of the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is one of several ambitious reconciliation proposals that will be promoted by the group of Thammasat University law lecturers this year.

The move came after the Pheu Thai government hesitated to push for an amnesty process for rank-and-file red shirts accused of violence during the political unrest in April-May 2010.

The group wants to put the amnesty as a chapter in the amended charter, said Worachet Pakeerut, Thammasat University law associate professor and a key member of Nitirat, which is officially known as the Enlightened Jurists Group.

"Why is it to be in the constitution? That's because an amnesty bill or decree will provide a blanket amnesty, but the proposed amnesty as a constitutional chapter will not cover authorities involved in crackdowns on protests after the Sept 19 coup in 2006 until the last election in 2011," Mr Worachet said.

"This [proposal] is unprecedented as it aims to teach a lesson to the authorities. It will be a concrete platform to dismantle the impunity in our society," said the Nitirat leader.

He said the normal mechanisms of the judiciary could not or did not care to provide justice to the people who have become entangled in political conflicts.

"State officials involved in crowd dispersal operations could already defend themselves under the normal justice system as they are already covered by protective clauses in other security laws," he added.

Under the proposed amnesty chapter, a five-member conflict resolution committee would be established and it would have the final say on the amnesty process.

The committee members would consist of one nominated by the cabinet, two nominated by the House of Representatives _ one MP from the ruling party and another MP from the opposition _ one judge or retired judge selected by the parliament and one prosecutor or retired prosecutor also selected by parliament.

But a member of the Law Reform Commission (LRC) said introducing national reconciliation laws or amending the constitution to bring about reconciliation could only be achieved when political sentiments were conducive _ and now is not the right time.


-----
Panel seeks charter court's end | Bangkok Post: news

Panel seeks charter court's end

House study wants to curb judicial 'meddling'

• Published: 8/01/2013 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The Constitution Court and the Supreme Court's Criminal Section for Holders of Political Positions, should be dissolved, says a House sub-committee looking into charter amendments.

The sub-committee made the recommendation yesterday after wrapping up a study of proposed charter changes.

Sophon Phetsawang, the panel's chair, said the committee was proposing the abolition of the two judicial bodies because of concerns over the judiciary's alleged interference in politics.

He said the charter court should be replaced with a constitution tribunal to be elected by parliament, while cases handled by the Supreme Court's Criminal Section for Holders of Political Positions should be considered by a court of justice.

"The tribunal should rule on constitutionality only, and not be authorised to consider the dissolution of political parties.

"The Constitution Court currently has too much power and is considered to meddle with politics," he said.

Mr Sophon said abolition of the Supreme Court's Criminal Section for Holders of Political Positions is necessary because the whole idea behind it is flawed.

"We are the only country with such a court. It is not fair [that] defendants can't appeal when they lose," he said.

Mr Sophon said the sub-committee had also proposed abolishing the Office of the Ombudsman and the election of senators, as well as reducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) power.

He said the agency's ability to directly file a lawsuit with a court would be revoked. Instead, the NACC would only be required to send cases to the Office of Attorney General.

He said the study also calls for a change to Section 309 to prevent future coups. However, it would not revoke any cases initiated by the coup-appointed Asset Scrutiny Committee.

"It is not intended to whitewash the ousted prime minister. It needs to be altered to prevent a coup," he said.

He denied the proposals were designed to curb the powers of independent public agencies in favour of politicians.

"Power belongs to the people who exercise it through parliament. If power is abused, they [MPs] won't be elected," he said.

He added that the study will be forwarded to a legal reform committee chaired by Prasop Busarakham for consideration before going to House speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont.

The results of the panel's study bore some similarities with proposals floated by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung at a Pheu Thai Party meeting on Sunday. Mr Chalerm proposed revising 81 sections covering nine issues largely dealing with independent public agencies.

Under his proposals, the Supreme Court's Criminal Section for Holders of Political Positions and the Office of the Ombudsman would be dissolved while the Constitution Court and the Administrative Court would come under the Supreme Court instead of being independent public entities.

He called for the NACC and the Election Commission to be elected by parliament and _ unlike the House study _ ending the appointment of senators.

Mr Chalerm also proposed amending Section 190 to free the cabinet from seeking parliament approval on international treaties and agreements, and to change Section 237 to prevent the dissolution of political parties.

Court of Justice spokesman Sitthisak Wanachakij yesterday said Mr Chalerm's proposals regarding the two courts was just a political initiative.

Mr Sitthisak said the Court of Justice has set up a committee to follow up on the charter amendment process and review its roles outlined in the 2007 charter.

According to Mr Sitthisak, some roles, such as selecting members of independent agencies, may need to be reassessed to ensure the court's transparency and independence.

"We will keep monitoring charter amendments that involve the Court of Justice before deciding to make further suggestions," he said.


-----
Abhisit says govt fears independent scrutiny | Bangkok Post: news

Abhisit says govt fears independent scrutiny

• Published: 9/01/2013 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The ruling Pheu Thai Party is trying to amend the constitution mainly to avoid scrutiny by independent organisations, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has charged.

Pheu Thai is unhappy that it is being kept in check by independent agencies under the constitution, he said.

Mr Abhisit was responding to a recommendation by a House sub-committee looking into charter amendments that the Constitution Court and the Supreme Court's Criminal Section for Holders of Political Positions be dissolved.

Sophon Phetsawang, the sub-committee's chair, said the panel was proposing the abolition of the two judicial bodies because of concerns over the judiciary's alleged interference in politics.

The sub-committee had also proposed abolishing the Office of the Ombudsman and the election of senators, as well as reducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) power.

It also calls for a change to Section 309 of the charter to prevent future coups. However, it would not revoke any cases initiated by the coup-appointed Asset Scrutiny Committee.

Mr Abhisit said the ruling party used to praise the previous 1997 constitution as it gave birth to several independent organisations including the NACC, the Constitution Court, and the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. But today, efforts are being made to weaken and abolish these agencies, he said.

Mr Abhisit said the independent agencies under the previous charter are different from those under the current charter in terms of the process to select their members.

The agencies under the previous charter were heavily interfered with, he said.

So drafters of the current charter thought it was necessary to correct the flaws of these agencies so they could function more efficiently in scrutinising politicians without having to deal with political interference.

Their stronger scrutiny mechanisms have now frustrated politicians who are looking to undermine them, he said.

Mr Abhisit said there is no reason to scrap the NACC. Despite its mandate, the anti-graft agency struggles to capture corrupt politicians, he said.

"The main aim [of the charter amendment] is to avoid scrutiny. It is based on the notion that those who have the House majority after winning the election have the right to do anything," Mr Abhisit said.

Democrat list-MP and opposition chief whip Jurin Laksanavisit said the proposal to abolish the independent agencies would give the government far too much power.

Mr Jurin said the proposal to change Section 309 only confirms the belief that the charter change is an attempt to benefit "a special person", meaning deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said yesterday she supported a proposal to ask leading universities to study charter amendments.

The proposal was raised at a Pheu Thai seminar in Khao Yai in Nakhon Ratchasima over the weekend.

She said the working panel appointed by the government to look into the benefits of holding a public referendum on charter amendments is likely to accept the proposal.

Plan shows govt's 'true intent' - The Nation

Plan shows govt's 'true intent'

The Nation January 9, 2013 1:00 am

Democrats condemn move to cut key courts, agencies via new charter

Radical proposals by a House working committee - to dissolve top courts and key government agencies - showed the "true colours" of the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its push to write a new constitution, the opposition Democrat Party said yesterday.

Democrat politicians pointed to the proposals made by the panel studying constitutional changes that call for the dissolution of independent organisations, the demotion of the Constitution Court, and removal of a clause that supports acts made under the post-coup Interim Constitution.

Observers noted that the panel's proposals are consistent with earlier calls by Pheu Thai and former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, who is believed to run the ruling party. These include dissolution of the Constitution Court, plus the Supreme Court's Division on Criminal Cases against Political Office Holders, plus the Auditor-General's Office, and reducing the power of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Similar proposals were voiced during Pheu Thai's election campaigns and political rallies of its red-shirt supporters.

The panel is chaired by non-MP Sophon Phetsawang, who has a connection with the ruling party. It was appointed by House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranond, who is a Pheu Thai MP.

Opposition chief whip Jurin Laksanawisit said yesterday the proposals showed that ruling politicians wanted to turn the country into "totalitarian democracy dominated by evil capitalism".

"They seem to fear scrutiny," he said, adding that by weakening the check-and-balance system, the government would have limited freedom in running the country.

Jurin, the Democrat's deputy leader, said the proposal for Article 309 to be removed was the clearest proof the amendment move was aimed to benefit "someone special". This confirmed that public concern was warranted, he said.

Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said most of the proposals would only benefit corrupt politicians and ordinary people would suffer more because of weakened scrutiny.

Constitution Court spokesman Pimol Thammapitakpong said yesterday that its judges were not worried and had not felt pressure from the proposal for the court to be demoted to the status of a tribunal. He said the court had sought to deal with all cases impartially, carefully, and in line with the laws and evidence.

"The court has strictly adhered to the national interest and the public benefit," he said.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai figures sought to distance the party from Sophon's panel yesterday.

Wattana Sengpairoh, spokesman for the House Speaker, said it was improper for Sophon to make public the proposals before submitting them to the speaker. He denied Pheu Thai had influenced Sophon's panel.

The panel is part of the Committee for Law Improvement and Amendment. It consists mostly of Pheu Thai politicians and pro-government figures.

Sophon said yesterday that the proposals resulted from three months of studying all the country's past constitutions. He said his working group consisted of many academics and experts, adding that the goal was to "give full power to the people, who have the power of sovereignty".

Proposed changes

Charter amendments as proposed by a House working group led by Sophon Phetsawang:

_ Leave provisions on the monarchy intact

_ House and Senate compositions to emulate the 1997 charter

_ House to comprise 500 seats - 400 from direct voting and 100 from proportional (party-list) voting

_ Senate to comprise 200 seats from direct voting

_ Disband Constitution Court and revert to Parliament-appointed constitutional judges tasked to rule on constitutionality cases without mandate to dissolve political parties

_ Disband the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders and subject all political cases to three-tier review by the Courts of Justice

_ Disband the Ombudsman's Office and transfer its responsibilities to the Administrative Court

_ Revoke the National Anti-Corruption Commission's mandate to prosecute without the endorsement of the Attorney-General's Office

_ Revoke Article 309, which sanctions the 2006 coup, but uphold all judicial proceedings for graft cases, past and present, initiated under this provision

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The Nitirat group has proposed that a political amnesty for red-shirt protesters

No ploblem- but said amnesty would also have to encompass the yellow shirts.
Just as it's all very well for Thaksin to go to jail, joined by Mark & Suthep. Or not.
There is no such thing as a limited or conditional amnesty- then it can, and will, be accused along partisan lines. You either have one, or you don't.

the danger with the amendments of the constitution is that PT is not interested in any real democratic change, only consolidation of power.

For them, Democracy means more options for them to gain power, nothing else.

Democracy again is the balanced distribution of power, not concentration, something all those "private" political parties fail to understand. They are simply small tribes trying to put their hand on a bigger crowd.

Constitution Court turns down reds' demand for clarification on ruling - The Nation

Constitution Court turns down reds' demand for clarification on ruling

Chanikarn Phumhirun
The Nation January 11, 2013 1:00 am

The Constitution Court is in no way obliged to provide clarifications on its ruling on charter amendment, court president Wasan Soypisudh said yesterday.

Leaders of the red-shirt Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) yesterday filed a petition demanding that the Constitution Court provide answers to what it calls the "Bt1-billion questions" - two queries the group claims will cost the taxpayers Bt2 billion if a public referendum on charter amendment is held.

DAAD chief Thida Thavornseth led a group of red shirts and Pheu Thai Party MPs to hand in a letter asking the Constitution Court if holding a public referendum is mandatory before the Parliament votes on the third reading of the amendment or if it can proceed without a referendum.

Thida said her group wanted answers to two questions in relation to the court's ruling 18-22/2555 dated July 13, 2012, which said "a public referendum should be held to decide if a new charter is needed or not".

The questions are:

_ Is this ruling legally binding, and if so, which Articles of the Constitution is the ruling based upon, or is it just a suggestion?

_ Did the court issue a ruling against the third reading in Parliament, and if so, which Articles of the Constitution was this ruling based upon?

Thida said these answers were needed because different judges offered conflicting opinions. For instance, Constitution Court judge Chalermpol Ek-uru indicated that almost every Article in the charter could be amended with the exception of Article 291 (1) paragraph 2, while judge Nurak Mapraneet said the 2007 Constitution did not allow any amendments.

According to Thida, of the five Constitution Court judges, one said a public referendum should be held after the charter-amendment draft is completed, while four judges said the decision rested with the legislative branch and the judicial branch could not interfere.

"We believe the court should help the country find a way out of this political impasse. Judges should not pass this responsibility on to the public,'' she said.

Meanwhile, red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Promphan said the Office of the Constitution Court should review its announcement about the court not being obliged to answer questions.

"Each question costs Bt1 billion. If the court says we must hold a public referendum, the country will have to spend Bt2 billion, otherwise the charter can be amended by voting in the third reading for free and the Bt2 billion can be used for the country's development,'' he said.

In response, the court's president Wasan said that though the Constitution Court was not obliged to explain its ruling, the litigants had the right to file a petition according to the civil code.

"A judiciary committee will hold a meeting to look into the petition and see if those who question the ruling truly do not understand or pretend not to understand or are just pretending to be dumb,'' he said.

When asked if the red shirts just wanted an assurance from the court so that they could move forward with the amendment, Wasan said he did not know if it was a move forward or backward.

Asked if the court feared the amendment would result in the Constitution Court being dissolved and merely becoming a division under the Supreme Court, Wasan said it depends on whether the Supreme Court would accept it.

"It is good if we are merged into the Supreme Court, because then anybody who insults the court will go to jail," he said.

Thailand, where no charge is ever too absurd | Bangkok Post: opinion

Thailand, where no charge is ever too absurd

• Published: 10/01/2013 at 11:29 AM
• Online news: Opinion

If the Pheu Thai government can either round up 23 million referendum votes or just simply bulldoze the constitution change proposal through parliament, then I will tip my hat, even if I don’t wear a hat.

Afterall, courage, ingenuity and efficiency deserve a victory.

But thus far, all we see are fear, indecision and ineptitude.

The Democrats put them in jail; the Pheu Thai government keeps them in jail – and so the story goes. We are talking about the so-called "political prisoners", and let's also throw the lese majeste convicts and detainees into the mix.

I put "political prisoners" in quotation marks because one man’s "political prisoner" is another man’s "imprisoned terrorist" -- so readers can interpret it according to their colour-coded allegiance. It’s neither here nor there for me.

In 2010 the Democrats put in prison thousands of "political prisoners" and those accused of lese majeste. In 2011, Pheu Thai campaigned for election on the release and justice for those imprisoned, by way of amending the 2007 constitution.

They promised this to their support base, specifically the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorships (UDD). But just before this New Year past, the Pheu Thai government again backed away from a third reading of the charter amendment bill, thereby ensuring those they have given promises to remain in jail… just a little longer.

But there is still pressure being applied, as neither Bangkok prison nor Dubai mansion like to wait very long. It’s been too long already. But while the more cautious members of the Pheu Thai camp are saying "let’s go ahead with a public referendum", others are warning "are you crazy?".

Section 9 of the Referendum Act (2009) requires more than half of the eligible voters must take part in a referendum for it to be valid. With about 46 million eligible voters, that’s more than 23 million. That’s a long stretch.

About 15 million people voted for Pheu Thai in the July 3, 2011 general election. Even if they all showed up, they would need eight million more. Could they convince more people to turn out and vote? Could they rely on Pheu Thai's coalition partners to rake in the numbers? Meanwhile, the opposition has only to convince people to stay home.


File photo

It’s a complicated risk, because if Pheu Thai cannot get the numbers, then it’s a huge political defeat and might be the end of any talk of a charter change. (As a side note, that is one cleverly written Referendum Act, eh?)

The more rambunctious Pheu Thai members may say that they have a clear majority in the parliament. The people voted for them. The people voted on this promise. No need for a referendum, just ram it through the parliament. Bulldoze, baby!

Yet still, the more cautious ones might counter, hold on a second. Yes, we can do that. But then the Constitution Court might ban us all for a plot against something or other.

Although the bulldozers would disagree, pointing out that the Democrats had already tried to get Pheu Thai banned for allegedly plotting against the monarchy with the charter change proposal back on July 13 last year, but the court dismissed the case.

But then the cautioners may again counter, yes, and they told us to have a public referendum. Read between the lines.

Oops, the bulldozers might say, we see your point. But still, they might cry, why must the judges interfere? To which the cautioners may reply, it’s the checks and balances of democracy – the judicial, the executive and the parliamentary counterweigh each other.

Naturally, the bulldozers can’t accept this, pointing out that there’s an invisible hand behind the judiciary. To which the cautioners may answer, well there’s a very visible hand squarely behind us.

Meanwhile, those "political prisoners" and lese majeste offenders still languish in jail as the Pheu Thai Party, so far, doesn’t deem it worthwhile to take such a political risk on their behalf.

As well, one man still makes a Dubai mansion his home, suffering the injustice of having to hold meetings and conduct the affairs of Thailand in mansions and penthouse suites around Asia. Instead of getting to shop at the new Siam Centre Ideaopolis, he has to make do with Champs Elysees and the like.

Could there be any story more tragic since the Capulets clashed with the Montagues? I think not.

In regards to the charter change, it is perhaps farfetched to imagine on what grounds the Constitution Court could ban the Pheu Thai Party. But let’s not forget, former prime minister Samak Sundaravej was done away with because of a cooking show.

This is Thailand, where no charge is ever too absurd. The fear is real.



Just like the TV action drama Nua Mek 2 that was yanked from Channel 3. Why? Because the plot involved a female prime minister? That one of the bad guys was a billionaire politician? That there’s corruption, tax evasion and attempts to sell Thai assets to foreigners? Because there’s black magic versus "heavenly" magic (read between the quotes, please)?

Of course, such a storyline defies Section 37 of the Broadcast and Telecommunications Operations Act that prohibits radio and TV content deemed detrimental to the monarchy, national stability or public morality.

Heaven forbid, viewers might emulate the bad guy and start practising corruption, cheat on taxes and sell Thai assets to foreigners. We can’t have that. In any case, Channel 3 said it was because of the excessive violence in the show – the likes of which we have not witnessed since Mercutio crossed sword with Tybalt.

See, this is Thailand, where no charge is ever too absurd. The fear is real.

This is similar to the fate of the 2011 Thai adaption of the movie "Shakespeare Must Die", which was banned because the plot follows the tragedy of a Thai Macbeth whose own corrupt morality is exploited by a manipulative wife to seize the throne from a rightful monarch, only to meet with a tragic and deserving end.

Again, heaven forbid, some husband and wife duo might plot to take over Thailand after watching the movie. Thank goodness, the film was banned.

You see, this is Thailand, where no charge is ever too absurd.

Throughout our history, a number of movies, TV shows, newspapers, people and parties have been banned or imprisoned because they were deemed to be detrimental to the monarchy, national stability, public morality or the man in Dubai. The fear is real.

So if the Pheu Thai Party decides to keep the "political prisoners" and lese majeste offenders in jail a little longer, just a little mind you, just until things work out, then it is all very understandable.

Who wants to risk their MP status and ministerial portfolio for those already in jail? No way.

Now where’s my hat?


Writer: Voranai Vanijaka

Govt losing its nerve, Nitirat says | Bangkok Post: news

Govt losing its nerve, Nitirat says

• Published: 11 Feb 2013 at 00.00
• Newspaper section: News

The government is losing its nerve in its effort to press ahead with the constitutional amendment process, says Thammasat University law associate professor Worachet Pakeerut.

Speaking at a seminar organised yesterday by the Institute of Democratisation Studies, Mr Worachet, the Nitirat group core leader, said the government will not risk losing its hold on power to pursue the charter amendment.

Typically, governments that try to amend their nations' charters tend to get themselves into trouble, he said.

"The present government is no exception," he said.

The charter has mechanisms built into it to prevent easy amendments, he said.

Charter change was looking unlikely as it appears the government is willing to make compromises to ensure it remains in power.

The government should push through the bill to amend Section 291 of the constitution through its third and final reading, he said.

The bill has been stalled before the House. If passed, the bill would set up a charter drafting assembly to start the charter rewriting process immediately.

If the bill to amend Section 291 fails before parliament, the prime minister should dissolve the House and call a general election, Mr Worachet said. The amendment should be an election pledge that voters can decide on, he said.

The other option is to amend certain sections of the charter _ such as Section 68, which prohibits attempts to overthrow the constitutional monarchy or other unconstitutional power grabs. The section allows the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of such moves.

Section 68 is contentious as some observers question whether the court has the authority to directly receive a petition of complaint from the public.

Chaturon Chaisaeng, former acting leader of the defunct Thai Rak Thai Party, said parties must figure out if they want charter change or not.

The political crisis stems from each side refusing to accept the rule of law, he said.

Pheu Thai to 'explain' Section 68
22 Apr 2013

The Pheu Thai Party will set out why it is opposed to the Constitution Court's consideration of a petition against the proposed rewrite of Section 68 of the charter, party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said on Monday.

The explanation will be made in an open letter to the press, members of parliament and state agencies, he said.

A detailed explanation will say why the court’s decision to accept the case filed by Sen Somchai Sawaengkarn was a wrongful intervention into the affairs of the legislative branch of government.

Mr Prompong Nopparit said Section 68 of the constitution allows the public to complain directly to the court in relation to acts that could undermine the constitutional monarchy or grab power through unconstitutional means.

The amendment would require complaints to be made first with public prosecutors, a move viewed by Mr Somchai as depriving the public of its right to raise issues with the court.

“If we don’t clarify this and keep on accepting the power of the Constitution Court, it will cause problem for the sovereign power. We need to make it clear to the people that the power to establish laws belongs to members of parliament," he said.

Parliament has no conflict with the court, nor does it intend to try and overthrow an independent organisation, as claimed by the Democrats, Mr Prompong said.

The explanation will probably be released next week, he added.

Pheu Thai MPs and senators backing the charter amendment have vowed to impeach Constitution Court judges. The Pheu Thai party, however, said the impeachment threats do not reflect the party's position on the issue, but the actions of individual MPs.

bangkokpost.com

Democracy: Thailand’s Rule of Law Commission criticizes Constitutional Court & wants amendments
April 24, 2013

Professor Ukrit Mongkolnavin, chairman of the Independent National Rule of Law Commission today issued an “Open Letter” criticizing the Constitutional Court and calling for the amendment of the constitution, to fixed the problem. Of the Thai military government drawn constitution, Aung San Suu Kyi, said, quote: “Thailand is the proof that a military constitution does not work.”

While most Thai press and foreign press, such as Bangkok Post, Nation Group and Reuters support and protects the Thai Constitutional Court, most neutral observer of Thailand says the Constitutional Court is part of the elite establishment, and was created to guarantee, the “Elite Power Control” of Thailand. The Thai Constitutional Court has a close relationship to the former Thai PM, Abhisit Vajachiva, and is extremely close to those who planned and staged the 2006 coup.

The Constitutional Court judges, have in the past year, translated the word “And” to mean “Or” and gave itself unilateral power, kicking out the Attorney General’s Office, in accepting cases and making rulings. The Constitutional Court have also erased its website to hide statements that it must go through the Attorney’s Office, and recalled the court’s books that said the same thing.

The Constitutional Court is now involved in telling Parliament if it can amend the Constitution or not. Most neutral analyst said the Constitutional Court is trying the protect itself, and the “Controlling Power” of the Constitutional Court and the Eliteestablishment.

The Open Letter:

วันที่ 24 เม.ย. ศ.ดร.อุกฤษ มงคลนาวิน ประธานคณะกรรมการอิสระว่าด้วยการส่งเสริมหลังนิติธรร มแห่งชาติ (คอ.นธ.) ได้ออกจดหมายเปิดผนึก “ข้อเสนอปรับปรุงศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ” ใจความดังนี้

• (Professor Ukrit Mongkolnavin chairman of the Independent National Rule of Law Commission (INRLC) issued an open letter on improvements to the Constitutional Court)

ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญเป็นองค์กรที่มีทบาทสำคัญในการที่จะคุ้ มครองสิทธิและ เสรีภาพของประชาชน อีกทั้ง เป็นองค์กรที่มีหน้าที่ควบคุมมิให้บัญญัติของกฎหมายใ ดขัดหรือแย้งต่อรัฐ ธรรมนูญ เพื่อเป็นหลักประกันความเป็นกฎหมายสูงสุดของรัฐธรรมน ูญ และรัฐธรรมนูญได้บัญญัติให้คำวินิจฉัยของศาลรัฐธรรมน ูญมีผลผูกพันเด็ดขาดต่อ รัฐสภา คณะรัฐมนตรี ศาล และองค์กรอื่นของรัฐ

• (The Constitutional Court is meant to protect the people rights by making sure law passed by Parliament in in accordance with the constitution. Its rulings is enforceable throughout the Thai public sector)

อย่างไรก็ตาม คำวินิจฉัยของศาลรัฐธรรมนูญในคดีสำคัญหลายคดีที่ผ่าน มา โดยเฉพาะในช่วงระยะเวลาประมาณ 7-8 ปีที่ผ่านมานี้ ได้ถูกวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ในวงกว้างว่า เป็นคำวินิจฉัยที่อาจมีปัญหาเกี่ยวกับความถูกต้องเป็ นธรรม และหลายคดีศาลรัฐธรรมนูญได้วินิจฉัยคดีโดยได้ก้าวล่ว งการใช้อำนาจอธิปไตยของ องค์กรอื่นโดยไม่มีอำนาจ และขัดต่อหลักการแบ่งแยกอำนาจ จนนำมาสู่ความหวาดระแวง สงสัยว่าศาลรัฐธรรมนูญได้ทำหน้าที่ของตนให้สมกับความ คาดหวังของประชาชน และภารกิจที่รัฐธรรมนูญได้มอบหมายไว้หรือไม่ และการพิจารณาพิพากษาของศาลรัฐธรรมนูญเป็นไปอย่างมีอ ิสระหรือไม่

• (However, there are many questions in society as to the Constitutional Court rulings in the past 7-8 years that have cause a great societal debate about if those rulings were just rulings and if the Constitutional Court have breached the separations of power, where in combination, the Constitutional Court have create fear that the court is not doing its job according to expectations)

ทั้งนี้ โดยมีกรณีตัวอย่างคำวินิจฉัยของศาลรัฐธรรมนูญที่น่าส นใจ และผู้เขียนมีความเห็นว่า คำวินิจฉัยดังกล่าวเป็นส่วนหนึ่งที่ทำให้สังคมไทยเกิ ดความขัดแย้งทางสังคม และทางการเมืองที่รุนแรงอย่างที่ไม่เคยปรากฎมาก ่อน เช่น คดีการเพิกถอนการเลือกตั้งสมาชิกสภาผู้แทนรษฎร เมื่อวันที่ 2 เมษายน 2549 โดยเห็นว่าการจัดคูหาเลือกตั้งไม่เป็นการลงคะแนนโดยล ับ คดียุบพรรคการเมืองหลายพรรค คดีการตัดสินให้ความเป็นรัฐมนตรีของนายกรัฐมนตร ี (นายสมัคร สุนทรเวช) สิ้นสุดลง เพราะเหตุเป็นพิธีกรในรายการ “ชิมไป บ่นไป” หรือคำสั่งศาลรัฐธรรมนูญกรณีรับคำร้องตามรัฐธรรมนูญม าตรา 68 ไว้พิจารณา และมีคำสั่งรับคำร้องของนายสมชาย แสวงการ และนายบวร ยสินธร ที่ใช้สิทธิตามมาตรา 68 เพื่อขอให้ยับยั้งการแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 68 และมาตรา 237 ของรัฐสภา เป็นต้น

• (There are many judgments by the Constitutional Court that I believe have caused widespred civil disturbances and political chaos, for example the nullification of a general election based on voter ballot box positioning, the ousting of PM Samak Sunthoravej for appearing on a cooking TV program, and the stopping of the parliament to amend the constitution)

นอกจากนี้ ในปีที่ผ่านมาและเมื่อเร็วๆ นี้ ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญได้มีคำวินิจฉัยว่า บทบัญญัติของกฎหมายจำนวน 2 ฉบับ ขัดหรือแย้งต่อรัฐธรรมนูญ และมีผลทำให้บทบัญญัติดังกล่าวเป็นอันใช้บังคับไม่ได ้ กล่าวคือ พระราชบัญญัติขายตรงและตลาดแบบตรง พ.ศ. 2545 มาตรา 54 และพระราชบัญญัติความร่วมมือระหว่างประเทศในเรื่องทา งอาญา พ.ศ.2535 มาตรา 41 ทั้งนี้ มีข้อสังเกตุว่า คำวินิจฉัยศาลรัฐธรรมนูญทั้ง 2 เรื่องดังกล่าว กระทำโดยมติ 5 ต่อ 4 เสียง ซึ่งถือว่าเฉียดฉิวมาก มติของตุลาการศาลรัฐธรรมนูญต่างกันเพียงเสียงเดียวเท ่านั้น แต่มีผลทำให้บทบัญญติของกฎหมายที่ผ่านกระบวนการ ต่างๆ และมีการพิจารณาอย่างละเอียดรอบคอบมาแล้วต้องตกไปหรื อเป็นอันบังคับมิได้ใน ทันที

• (Furthermore, there have been 2 recent rulings that laws went against the Constitution, where the voting at the court was 5 to 4, which is very close, thus the laws, which went through careful considerations and long process, was ousted, by only a very slight Constitutional Court vote margin)

จากสภาพปัญหาในการทำหน้าที่ของศาลรัฐธรรมนูญดังได้กล ่าวมาข้างต้นแล้ว จึงเป็นเหตุผลหนึ่งที่ทำให้ทุกฝ่ายที่เกี่ยวข้องมีคว ามพยายามในการแก้ไข เพิ่มเติมรัฐธรรมนูญรายมาตรา ซึ่งนอกจากการแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมรัฐธรรมนูญรายมาตราที่รั ฐสภากำลังดำเนินการอยู่ ในปัจจุบัน ผู้เขียนมีข้อเสนอแนะเพื่อการแก้ไขปัญหาของศาลรัฐธรร มนูญเพิ่มเติม ดังนี้

thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com

NACC decides to conduct more investigations in malfeasance case against former House speaker Somsak
March 20, 2014

The National Anti-Corruption Commission Thursday decided to conduct more investigations in the alleged malfeasance case against former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranont.

Somsak was charged with malfeasance in his capacity as the Parliament president while chairing parliamentary meetings to deliberate the charter amendment bill on the Senate's composition.

The NACC decided that it needed more information for making a decision whether to indict Somsak.

nationmultimedia.com

NACC indicts Somsak over charter amendment
April 1, 2014

National Anti-Corruption Commission Tuesday resolved to indict former Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont related to his role in constitutional amendment on the composition of the Senate, commissioner Prasart Pongsivapai said.

The anti-graft agency indicted Somsak over alleged violation of the Constitution while chairing parliamentary meetings to deliberate a charter amendment bill on the Senate composition.

The NACC said Somsak illegally submitted an inauthentic version of the draft law as proposed by the MPs who proposed the charter change, deprived the rights of the parliamentarians to debate in the deliberation and illegally ordered the Parliament's voting in the third reading although opposed by parliamentarians.

nationmultimedia.com