Further updated: Activist courts = judicial coup

8 06 2012

The Nation reports on the Constitutional Court’s opinion on its intervention in politics. This is the report:

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 high court [Constitutional Court] interpreted that “and” was a conjective [PPT: perhaps they mean “conjunctive”?] word joining two phrases to allow the complainants to initiate the legal proceedings with the attorney general and alternately with the court.

For the case in question, the high court already ruled to launch an inquiry regardless of the legal opinions of the attorney general.

This is legal twaddle, but who would have expected the royalist, corrupt and politicized judiciary not to stick together in their assigned task? This marks yet one more example of the judiciary’s awful bias and double standards. The judicial coup proceeds.

Update 1: The Puea Thai Party claims that a retired Admiral P. is one of the significant players behind some of the royalist plot against constitutional change. 2Bangkok.com states that Admiral P is Admiral Phajun Tamprathip, director of the Geneneral Prem Tinsulanonda Foundation and Aide-de-camp of Privy Councillor Prem Tinsulanonda. We guess they should know.

Update 2: We note Kaewmala’s post at the Siam Voices blog:

In fact, who has the right to file a petition to the Constitution Court under Sec 68 is a matter that has a precedent, and the position of the Constitution Court was once very different. In May 2006, the Constitution Court  rejected a petition by a former MP submitted under the same section in the previous constitution on the basis that Section 63  (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text) did not allow the complainant to directly submit the petition to the Constitution Court. The Court then ruled that the petition must first be considered by the Attorney General. The rejected petition in 2006 was filed to request the Court to disband the Democrat Party. Politics by its nature is always shifting. It would appear that in the six years of separation between the 2006 case and the 2012 case, either the law or the judges have shifted along with politics.

The highlighted words above link to this story from 25 May 2006:

The Constitutional Court has repealed Mr. Suphot’s petition for dissolving the Democrat Party

The Constitutional Court has repealed the petition of Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul (สุพจน์ โตวิจักษณ์ชัยกุล) for dissolving the Democrat Party as the court deemed that the process of filing the lawsuit does not go in line with the law requirements.

Mr. Suphot earlier handed a petition requesting the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Democrat Party due to the Article 63 of the Constitutional law. The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court. The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.




%d bloggers like this: