Saturday, March 28, 2020

No conflict with CDC over draft, insists Constitutional Court source

Sep 01. 2016
Facebook Twitter


THE CONSTITUTIONAL Court is not in conflict with the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), despite twice rejecting the CDC’s submission of the revised charter draft due to incomplete procedures, a source at the court insisted yesterday.
“We are not in conflict with the CDC and we perform our duties as normal. 
“We found that the CDC’s charter document submission was incomplete, so we issued an instruction to correct it – that’s all,” said the source.
The source said that once the CDC had followed its instructions, the court would then proceed with the matter, with deliberation scheduled for September 7. CDC chief Meechai Ruchupan yesterday signed a letter authorising a Parliament official to additionally submit it to the court.
The CDC first submitted the revised charter draft along with a revised preamble of the charter and an explanation of the amendment to the court on Monday.
However, it pulled the documents back |the following morning due to a minor procedural issue amid speculation that some undisclosed changes would be made behind closed |doors. 
The CDC had finished revising the draft regarding the additional question pertaining to the appointment of the prime minister approved by a majority of voters in the August 7 referendum. 
It asked the voters whether they would allow the joint houses of Parliament to “consider approving” the appropriate person to be appointed as prime minister during the first five years after a general election.
The drafters agreed that the extra question only allowed appointed senators to join the Lower House in the final voting process, but not the initial nomination of candidates, regardless of the contradictory explanation by the National Legislative Assembly.
The CDC resubmitted the documents on Wednesday but its submission was again rejected by the court.
According to the court, the CDC’s submission on Monday by a parliament administration official was later than the normal closing time of the court’s office. 
It also omitted the CDC members’ signatures while there was no authorisation letter attached.
On the second occasion, the CDC’s submission again omitted a letter of authorisation.
CDC spokesman Udom Ratamarit said the hiccup was not because of charter content, but because of the court’s required submission |procedures.

Facebook Twitter
More in News
Editor’s Picks
Top News