Unanswered questions
Play
MOST ACADEMICS CONSIDERED the Constitutional Court's ruling yesterday on charter amendments related to the qualification and election of senators did not clearly indicate what should be done with the bill next and what action should be taken against the
They said the court failed to issue a clear order on what to do next, hence other legal channels might be sought to take action against the 312 MPs and senators who voted for the amendment.
Academic Verapat Prariyawong, said it would be dangerous and create a political vacuum if the court did not provide a clear order on the bill, adding that it would now be up to His Majesty’s principal private secretary to decide what to do with the draft in his hand.
He said the decision on what should be done with the 312 MPs and senators could also be left up to National Anti-Corruption Commission or the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office.
Pornson Liengboonlertchai, a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science, said the court should have issued an order to kill the amendment bill. He went on to say that the ruling was problematic and violated the intention of the 2007 charter because the judges’ action was politically motivated.
However, Jade Dhonavanik, dean of the Law Graduate School of Siam University, supported the verdict, saying the court did not issue an order for MPs and senators to comply with it because it did not want to interfere with parliamentary affairs.
Seri Suwanphanon, who helped draft both the 1997 and 2007 charters, said the court’s decision was correct and based on the intention of the charter.
“I think the Constitutional Court did not interfere in the parliamentary affairs, even though it has the authority to check the work of parliamentarians,” Seri said, adding that the verdict had automatically annulled the bill without any further action necessary.
