Pheu Thai blasts court

A constitutional crisis is brewing after the Pheu Thai Party strongly lashed out against the charter court’s ruling, saying the court’s action was tantamount to a coup d’etat.

Pheu Thai’s legal adviser, Chusak Sirinil, said the ruling coalition parties were preparing to file two charges against five court judges who ruled that the charter amendment was unconstitutional, for violation of the Constitution’s Articles 157 and 112 (interference and violation of the King’s power). 

The ruling, which killed the bill, was announced while the law is pending royal endorsement.

While the issue of the court’s authority to rule on the case is being hotly debated, on the other front, anti-government groups have started their campaign to oust the government. Five impeachment petitions have been submitted to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which will be combined into a single case. Named in the petitions are House speaker, Senate speaker and 312 other parliamentarians related to the charter amendment. 

In a three-point statement, Pheu Thai said the court’s ruling was an interference in the affairs of parliamentarians, and as such was like a coup against the mandate of the people. The statement was issued a day after the Constitutional Court ruled that the charter amendment bill regarding senator selection, endorsed by 312 parliamentarians, was unconstitutional.

“The 312 MPs sponsored the charter amendment bill on the Senate’s composition to make the charter democratic based on the principle that the ruling mandate belongs to the people. As a result, all parliamentarians must be elected in accordance with the principles of the 1997 charter, which was the people’s constitution,” Pheu Thai said.

It also noted that Article 291 of the Constitution clearly states that the power to amend the charter belongs to Parliament. Article 291 prohibits only two changes: a change in the ruling system from Constitutional Monarchy, and a change in the form of governance. The Constitutional Court intentionally abused its authority in violation of the Constitution by deciding to review petitions against the charter amendment bill. The party said the action warranted impeachment or criminal proceedings against the Constitutional Court judges. (The full version can be seen here: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Pheu-Thai-issues-statement-to-denounce-Constitutio-30220254.html).

 

Extremely dangerous

“It is extremely dangerous for a democracy when the court claims that the amendment bill violates several articles of the Constitution but the judges themselves abuse their authority outside the Constitution’s scope to reach such decisions.”

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana told the House yesterday that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has instructed the Council of State to study the ruling and advise the government what to do next as the ruling was unprecedented.

The NACC yesterday decided to launch an inquiry into MPs and senators involved in the charter amendment. The inquiry is a first step for impeachment and criminal proceedings. Should the NACC find cause for removal from office, the case would be forwarded to the Senate to hold an impeachment trial. Should there be criminal culpability, the case would be tried in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. Three NACC members, Vicha Mahakun, Jaided Pornchaiya and Pakdee Pothisiri, have been designated as lead inquirers responsible for the case. 

 “The impeachment petition is not meant as a revenge but is to uphold the rule of law,” Prasarn Marukpitak, a member of the 40 Senators Group that filed the petition said.

Former charter framer Seri Suwanphanont said impeached MPs would not qualify for re-election and would be banned from casting legislative votes during trial. Should the impeachment trial be activated, the MPs involved will not be able to evade the proceedings even if the House were to be dissolved, he added.

Four Pheu Thai MPs issued an open letter calling for House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont to rebut the verdict.

The four, led by Weng Tojirakarn, said they were dissatisfied with the judicial intervention in legislative affairs.

“From what I see, the Constitutional Court staged a bogus coup aiming at seizing power from the legislature even though the Constitution does not empower the court to meddle with the legislative work,” he said.

Echoing Weng, MP Shinwat Haboonhad said the judicial dignity was not equal to that of MPs elected by the people.

Pro-amendment senators stepped forward to cry foul, saying the judiciary was interfering with the legislative process.

Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the court was empowered to review only an Act of Parliament and lower categories of legislations and not amended charter provisions. Senator Wicharn Sirichai-Ekawat said he duly noted that three dissenting judges had opined the court had no mandate. Senator Narumol Siriwat said in her opinion, the high court had no mandate to rule on the charter amendment. Another MP Cherdchai Tantisirin said he saw the verdict as a royal offence because it came after the amendment had been forwarded for royal approval.

The opposition lawmakers will next week finalise their decision on related litigation involving 312 government MPs and senators, chief opposition whip Jurin Laksanawisit said.

Jurin said should the coalition push for the final passage of the bill designed to overhaul the entire Constitution, then this would mean the government had not really abandoned its amnesty bill. The complete rewrite of the charter, as per Article 291 of the Constitution, would result in the cancellation of Article 309, seen as the key provision dealing with graft cases, he said.

Striking down Article 309 would mean the whitewash of graft violations, tantamount to de facto amnesty, he said.

Chief coalition whip Aumnuay Khlangpha said coalition lawmakers, too, will meet next week to map out their next move related to charter change.

Senator Surchai Chaitrakulthong said a group of 50 pro-amendment senators would on Monday hold a discussion on the implications of the amendment verdict.

Certain senators within the group appeared to have accepted the verdict contrary to an earlier rejection of the judicial mandate voiced by their fellow lawmakers.

They said they found the verdict acceptable since the outcome was not as bad as had been previously anticipated.

The high court found the bill unconstitutional but stopped short of penalising the coalition parties and lawmakers involved.