Jurin: Hidden agenda in court plan

The parliamentary opposition yesterday criticised Pheu Thai party-list MP and legal expert Watana Muangsook’s proposal that the Constitution Court and Administrative Court be dissolved and turned into divisions of the Supreme Court.

Opposition chief whip Jurin Laksanavisit said the Pheu Thai Party had begun to reveal its hidden agenda to help fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a concern the Democrat Party raised during the recent parliamentary debate on charter change.

“The opposition whips believe this is what the Pheu Thai Party aims to do during the House committee’s deliberation of the charter-change drafts. We should not go back to the past; we have developed quite far now,” Jurin said. 

“We are worried that there might be limitations put on some mechanisms to favour some special person or particular people. The public should watch closely.”

After passing the first reading, the draft bill to change the charter’s clause on the constitutional-amendment process will be considered and deliberated by a parliamentary committee.

Watana is a member of the committee. During last week’s parliamentary debate, he criticised the 2007 Constitution as distorting the checks-and-balances system. 

Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said the two courts were necessary.

“We have to wait and see clearly how the story unfolds. However, the independence of independent organisations and the court is crucial to maintaining proper checks and balances on our political system, to make sure authorities do not abuse their power. It is wrong to say that these agencies are the problem just because they cannot use power as they want,” Abhisit said.

He was speaking on the “Fah Wan Mai” programme on Blue Sky Channel.

As evidence of the need for an independent Administrative Court, Abhisit raised the case of Map Ta Phut industrial estate, in which, he said, justice was served for local people. 

“It is clear to see that for many years before [the court’s ruling], their [local people’s] problems were not properly tackled. Therefore, we can see that the Administrative Court is necessary, just as independent organisations such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Election Commission are. But some changes related to their forms are possible,” Abhisit said.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung refused to comment on Watana’s proposal, saying it was too soon to speak on the matter and he did not want to have conflicts with his fellow party members.

“It’s too soon. We have to listen to the Constitution Drafting Assembly [CDA] first, but it hasn’t been established yet. The change to Article 291 isn’t finished. I don’t dare go too far. The party hasn’t discussed that,” Chalerm said.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the party’s MPs had been asked not to make any comment that could influence or override the work of the expected CDA, to protect the party’s reputation and prevent it being the target of political attacks.

Moreover, Prompong said, the party resolved to produce and publicise banners saying that all Pheu Thai members support the prohibition of the CDA from making any change to the chapter of the charter related to the monarchy.

Democrat MP and legal expert Thaworn Senneam said he disagreed with the idea of making changes to the two courts, as they are specialised chambers whose rulings are based on a high degree of expertise. 

The Constitution Court requires experts in the principles of Rechtsstaat and the rule of law to check and balance government administration to make sure it is in line with the charter. According to the legal concept of Rechtsstaat, a German term meaning roughly “state of justice”, citizens are protected from arbitrary use of authority by the placing of limits on state power.

According to Thaworn, the Administrative Court requires legal experts to consider whether use of state power violates the rights of the people and the public.

“Downgrading the two courts to make them divisions of the Supreme Court would block qualitative consideration of cases, as they would be considered using only ordinary legal principles, as in conventional courts, which base decisions on criminal, civil and procedural laws. These are not sufficient for such cases. I think the attempt to change [their status] is due to the fact that both courts ruled in cases that affected former premier Thaksin,” Thaworn said.