Fearful court to go public on charter
Play
The Constitution Court will hold a media conference later this week to explain to the public about its controversial order for Parliament to halt the third reading of the charter amendment bill, the Court's spokesperson Somrith Chaiwong said yesterday.
Somrith said the court is under pressure from those who want to sign a petition to seek the expulsion of its judges following their ruling made last week. No extra security measures have been taken to protect the judges however, said the spokesman although some judges have expressed their discomfort to him.
President of the Constitution Court, Vasan Soipisut has assigned agencies to compile information and data in defense of the court's ruling and to refute through the media the arguments and criticism that the court has no authority to make a ruling in such a manner.
In a related development, Deputy Minister of Agriculture and red-shirt co-leader Nattawut Saikua said judges should not be in a rush to make such a ruling and it appeared they were acting beyond their jurisdiction.
Nattawut said such a ruling would have no binding effect on the Parliament. He said there were doubts about how yellow-shirt leaders may be related to the Constitution Court as they announced before the ruling that there would be good news from the court.
He urged all eight judges to ask themselves whether they were committed to the democratic system or to an aristocratic system.
Nattawut said the Parliament would proceed with the third reading of the bill as it believes it has the right to do so, while red shirts will continue to collect signatures in order to remove the judges from the court.
Veteran legal expert Meechai Ruechuphan, has written on his website (www.meechaithailand.com) a defence of the court's ruling, saying it is binding on Parliament.
Meechai said the matter can be interpreted in two ways. One is to have the court directly make the ruling without having to wait for the Office of the Attorney General to forward the petition.
He added that paragraph five of Article 216 of the charter stated clearly that rulings by the Constitution Court are to be considered as finite and binding on the Parliament, Cabinet, other courts and other government bodies.
When asked its opinion of the proper procedure, the Office of the Attorney General Office said it was up to the Constitution Court to handle the matter. The Office wished not to interfere with the court's ruling.
It refused also to comment on the intention of Parliament to carry on with the third reading.
In another related development, Secretary of the Council of State Atchaporn Jaruchinda admitted that the court's ruling is unprecedented and had never occurred elsewhere in the world.
Atchaporn urged both sides to use reason to resolve the differences and added that the Constitution requires that the third reading be voted upon within 15 days.
