Constitution Court not your opponent, charter-change proponents told
Play
The Constitution Court chief on Friday said that the defendants in the case filed against proponents of constitutional amendment should focus on preparing to defend themselves in court rather than attacking the court.
Wasant Soypisut, president of the Constitutional Court , said that no defendants in the case have publicly rejected the allegation that they attempt to overthrow the country’s democratic regime under constitutional monarchy in proposing constitutional amendment that would allow writing of a new constitution.
“Instead of fighting with the plaintiffs, these defendants aim their attack at the court,” Wasant said. “The court has just accepted the petition for judicial review and no judgement has been made yet. But the defendants imagined that the court was ordered by some ‘ammart’ [powerful elites] for dissolution of the party [Pheu Thai],” he added.
The justice said the politicians involved should focus on preparing to present their case before court, or they could lose the case in a way that the Thai Rak Thai Party did. He was referring to the predecessor of the ruling Pheu Thai Party in its court fight. Thai Rak Thai was dissolved by court order for electoral fraud.
Wasant was speaking at a seminar held by the court on “the media role in improving the rule of law and legal state under the Constitution”, at the Grand Pacific Hotel.
He said that he did not think parliamentarians would be qualified to select judges as long as they still have improper behaviours.
The judge said that Thailand’s politics has made not much progress over the past 80 years after the change of political system from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. He blamed frequent coups by the military, who appears intolerant with the poor quality of politicians.
“Our situation is like those of the new democracies in Africa,” he said.
At the same seminar, Constitution Court justice Charoon Inthajarn said that many of Thailand’s laws were issued for the benefit of people in power, and not for the interest of most people in the country. “Some laws were issued with injustice for the benefit of people who issued them,” he said.
The judge also said that the law was enforced unfairly, with enforcement being marred by the patronage system and lobbying. He said that interpretation of laws should be done by experts and experienced professionals.
