Charter court verdict lacked transparency: Chalerm
Play
Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung yesterday criticised the Constitution Court and disputed its recent verdict in the case against proponents of constitutional amendment.
He said the court’s process of preparing the official verdict, which was released on Thursday, lacked transparency.
Chalerm said that unlike in previous cases, the judges’ personal decisions in the case were not available shortly after the verdict was read on July 13. It took almost two weeks before the official verdict was released to the public on Thursday, he noted in a statement released yesterday.
He said the judges’ personal rulings could have been influenced or altered after their joint verdict was announced.
Copies of Chalerm’s seven-page statement were distributed to reporters at Government House yesterday.
To many observers, the verdict read on July 13 and the official version released on Thursday are almost identical.
Chalerm, who often points out that he has a doctorate in law from Ramkhamhaeng University, also said in his statement that he agreed with two of the points made in the court’s verdict, while disagreeing with the two others.
He disagreed with the court’s ruling that it was empowered by the Constitution to make a judicial review of the case. He also disputed the court’s ruling that Article 291 of the charter does not allow the writing of a new constitution. Chalerm said in citing “the spirit of the Constitution”, the judges appeared to follow their feelings rather than legal principles.
However, Chalerm backed the court’s decision to reject the petitions accusing amendment proponents of attempting to overthrow the country’s democratic system of government with the King as head of state. He also agreed with the court’s decision not to punish the defendants.
Meanwhile, a legal expert for the ruling Pheu Thai Party, Pichit Chuenban, yesterday said that the court’s official verdict offered no further explanation of the ruling read on July 13.
“The court still uses the word ‘should’, which leaves it unclear whether [something] can be done or not. The Constitution Court should be clearer if it thinks of itself as a pillar of democracy,” he said.
Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said the Cabinet was waiting for advice from the Council of State, the government’s legal advisory agency, on the court verdict.
