Battle over Charter set for court
Play
The Constitution Court's inquiry into charter change is expected to dominate this week's headlines, although the verdict, scheduled for later this month, will unlikely yield a world-shaking decision.
The ruling Pheu Thai Party and its red-shirt allies want support to fix the political system, which they see as coup-spon?sored and unfavourable to an elected gov?ernment.
The opposition Democrats and their allies, including opponents of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, aim to block what they see as the coalition’s bullying tactics to rig the system of checks and balances in order to grant amnesty for Thaksin.
As the push to amend the charter is nearing its final passage through Parliament, the court has stepped for?ward to inquire into the constitutionality of the charter amendment bill.
Tomorrow the court will convene to do two things – frame legal issues related to the charter rewrite, and check evidence submitted by the disputing parties. The inquiry will take place on Thursday and Friday to hear testimonies of witnesses.
Five complaints opposing the change are the basis for the judicial inquiry, but two – one filed by former junta member General Somjet Boonthanom and another by the Democrats – are at the centre of the litigation.
The Pheu Thai rebuttals will be the core arguments justifying the charter rewrite.
In other words, the ruling and opposi?tion parties have moved the charter debate from the legislative arena to the courtroom.
The gist of anti-amendment argu?ments is that the legislative push has gone beyond amending charter provi?sions as the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) is being given the man?date to write a new charter.
Article 291 of the Constitution pre?scribes amendments to existing provi?sions, but not overhaul of the political system.
A key witness for the anti-amendment camp is Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.
The gist of pro-amendment argu?ments is that the formation of the CDA is in line with precedents set by the sus?pended “people’s charter” of 1997.
A key witness for the pro-amendment camp is Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit.
If the political volatility surrounding charter change is to be overcome, then the high court’s ruling has to be framed in such a way as to avoid siding with either the coalition or the opposition.
Three scenarios have emerged for how the court could form a decision.
In the worst-case scenario for the gov?ernment, the court rules that charter change sponsors such as the ruling party and junior coalition allies have violated Article 68 of the Constitution, which bans any attempt to topple democratic rule or to cling to power by unconstitutional means.
With such an unfavourable verdict, the Pheu Thai and Chart Thai Pattana parties would be at risk of dissolution. But the chance of this happening is virtually nil.
In the best-case scenario, the court dismisses the case and rules to endorse charter change. But this is unlikely to happen given that the judicial inquiry would not have taken place if there was no cause to question the constitutionality of charter change.
The most likely scenario is a middle-ground verdict. The court will neither strike down nor endorse charter change but issue a caution regarding compliance with the Constitution.
The proposed rewriting departs from precedent on two points – the charter draft will not be vetted by Parliament for a referendum vote and the Parliament pres?ident is to settle the constitutionality issues in place of the court.
The Constitution Court’s verdict may address these two points before allowing the charter rewrite to go ahead.
