Nitirat group urges parliamentarians to resist Constitution Court on deferred charter amendment
Play
The Nitirat group of Thammasat University law lecturers yesterday said the recent decision by the Constitution Court to defer amendment of the charter should be resisted by parliamentarians, otherwise the court would become a supra-constitutional organisa
The court decided last week to accept for judicial review the question of whether the charter amendment bills proposed by the government are constitutional.
Nitirat member Savatri Suksri said in a statement on behalf of the group that there were three issues regarding the decision that the public should bear in mind.
First, Parliament has the constitutional right to continue to deliberate on charter amendment, as parliamentarians are not acting as an individual or as a particular political party, in accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution.
As long as the amendment does not lead to a change in the political part of the democratic system with His Majesty the King as the head of state, the Nitirat group argues, Parliament has full authority to proceed with it.
The Nitirat statement also pointed out that there had been many redraftings of constitutions since 1932.
The group’s second argument against the Constitution Court’s decision is that Article 68 of the charter stipulates that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) must first take up complaints and forward them to the Constitution Court, before the court can make any ruling.
The group accuses the Constitution Court of misinterpretation of the charter, as the second paragraph of Article 68 clearly states that only the OAG has this right.
What’s more, it argues, when looking at the minutes of the 27th meeting of the Constitution Court in 2007, the court came to the same conclusion, namely, that only the OAG can make such a petition to the Constitution Court.
The Nitirat statement said it considered the latest decision by the court as something “visibly wrong”.
Third, the Nitirat group believes the Constitution Court cannot by itself establish a temporary process to deal with the matter before making a final ruling.
Therefore, the group concludes that the court has no authority to make a ruling at this stage.
