Judiciary comes out in defence of the courts

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said it should be left to the Constitution Drafting Assembly to consider the content of charter change.
She said she opposed changing the whole Constitution, as only parts need to be modified. In particular, the section concerning the monarchy should remain untouched.
Constitution Court spokesman Pimol Thampitakpong said the court had always acted within the mandate sanctioned by the charter.
“The high court has no runaway power beyond its constitutional mandate,” he said.
Pimol was reacting to remarks by Watana Muangsook, who alleged that the judiciary had been dictatorial in its power over the political system and that certain independent organisations had become a tool for reprisal politics.
He said Watana had voiced as personal opinion, which did not reflect overall sentiment concerning the judiciary.
He said the Constitution Court and Administrative Court were part of the checks and balances designed to counter any abuses in the executive and legislative branches.
Watana also called for the downsizing of the two high courts to become an integral part of the Supreme Court.
Administrative Court spokesman Phairoj Minden said in a press conference that any revamp of the courts should aim to serve the public and not be swayed by the personal whims of politicians.
“Society should not be misled on the issue of a judicial revamp, which is still unclear and has to undergo several steps before conclusions can be drawn,” he said.
He said administrative litigation amounted to 6,000 to 7,000 cases per year, arguing that this was not a small workload that could be handled by the courts of justice.
The judicial review on administrative disputes involving government agencies and citizens required specialised procedures that are not available in the courts of justice, he added.
Phairoj said the airing of individual opinions on the courts at this juncture could cause confusion, and urged that the debate await the formation of the Constitution Drafting Assembly.
He rebutted Watana’s remark that the work of the Administrative Court could not be verified, saying that besides each ruling coming from a panel of judges, it is examined by the commissaire du gouvernement, that is, the judge who prepares the statement and announces the ruling but who is not one of the judges considering the case.
If the plaintiffs or defendants disagree with the Central Administrative Court’s ruling, they can appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, he added.
Moreover, the rulings are published in the Royal Gazette, which allows the public to examine and academically criticise the judgments, and the court judges are watched over by the Judicial Commission of the Administrative Court, in which the Senate participates.
The judges are also liable under Articles 201 and 202 of the Criminal Law in the event that they are found to have erred in their work related to justice affairs, he said.
The spokesman insisted it was important that no organisation or person interfered in the court’s work.
Office of the Judiciary spokesman Sitthisak Wanachakij said Watana’s comments only represented his personal opinion.
“It is too soon to worry about the personal opinions of a person or some groups of people which are not final yet,” he said.
Sitthisak earlier said the drafters of the 1997 charter had had the idea that cases of corruption or abuse by politicians should be proceeded with quickly, instead of taking three to five years before a case reaches a conclusion if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
The current Constitution therefore allows an appeal to the Supreme Court judges’ general meeting should there there be new evidence or witnesses, he added.
During the parliamentary debate on charter amendment last Friday, Watana also said the legal process for cases considered by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders was unfair as it did not allow for an appeal.
Meanwhile, non-governmental organisation Stop Global Warming Thailand yesterday issued a statement opposing the dissolution of the Administrative and Constitution courts, saying the institutions have been providing refuge to people who have no authority and need protection from injustice caused by the state’s misconduct or bad politicians.