Korkaew Warns Of Civil War If Court Rules Against Amendments

[Horneytorney]

and the red shirts are still NOT happy!

Jatuporn calls ruling 'deceptive'

 

from Bangkok Post

 

Red-shirt co-leader Jatuporn Prompan has branded the Constitution Court’s call for a public referendum if the government wants to draft a new constitution as "lab luang prang" (secrets, lies and masquerade).

 

However, he said the red shirts could claim a unilateral victory in light of the court's dismissal of claims that the Pheu Thai government was trying to overthrow the current system of government.

 

Mr Jatuporn said he saw Friday's ruling as "secretive and deceptive", likening it to an injection of anaesthetic that would delay parliament from going ahead with passage of the amendment bill on its third reading.

 

This was because the 2007 charter’s organic law on conducting a referendum said the process must take at least 90-120 days, he said.

 

The term "lab luang prang" has been used as the title of a popular non-fiction book series by the Bangkok Post’s military affairs reporter Wassana Nanuam.

 

The red-shirt leader said he did not see any provision in the charter that prohibits writing a whole new constitution.

 

He claimed the charter court judges had interfered with the government’s legislative authority given by the people when they ruled that the Constitution Court could accept the petitions of the bill's opponents directly.

 

The judges said on Friday that the court had the authority to do so, and did not need to wait for a petition to be submitted by the Office of the Attorney General.

 

Mr Jatuporn said he could not predict what the country's political landscape would be like in the near term while the debate over the constitution continues.

 

The initial aim of the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) was to demand charter change and the establishment of a new Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA).

 

Meanwhile, Noppadon Pattama, the legal adviser to ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, said Thaksin had learned about the court ruling and stressed that all sides should follow the court’s orders.

 

The Pheu Thai Party would call a meeting on Monday afternoon and release a statement about its position on the ruling after that, he said.

[Flashermac]

I saw TV coverage of Jatuporn sitting there smug as could be with the other red shit leaders, facing their adoring disciples. My immediate thought was ... what a perfect time to call in an air strike.

 

 

 

 

 

[Specialist]

Nahh, an air strike would be a waste of good Jet-A. Snipers are much more efficient, and you get far less collateral damage. (Recall the death of Seh Daeng during the unpleasantness a few years ago. One shot, one kill, and I think a reporter got a bit splattered.)

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

It almost makes you think they *want* civil war.

 

Sanuk!

[Flashermac]

Ruling set to halt charter bill push

 

 

The Constitution Court's ruling on the charter amendment bill yesterday is likely to halt the the Pheu Thai Party's attempt to push the bill through its third reading in parliament.

 

The party, reacting with caution after the ruling, will call a meeting of its MPs on Monday to discuss further moves.

 

Despite the court dismissing a charge that the bill to amend the charter was an attempt to overthrow the constitutional monarchy, it also stated that the 2007 constitution was endorsed by a public referendum, so any attempt to abolish it and rewrite a new one should be approved in a similar fashion.

 

This raised doubts about whether it would be legitimate to push the bill through its third reading. The charter's Section 291 disallows a new constitution from being written and only empowers parliament to amend the charter section by section.

 

The Pheu Thai-sponsored bill, however, amends this section. If it sailed through the third reading, a charter drafting assembly would be elected to rewrite the constitution.

 

Chief government whip Udomdej Rattanasathien said it was too early to tell if the charter rewrite process would now go ahead.

 

"We can't really say if the third reading will proceed. If a referendum is to be held, the third reading may be suspended pending the referendum," he said.

 

Mr Udomdej said Pheu Thai would have to discuss the issue with coalition partners before making a decision.

 

Noppadon Pattama, legal adviser to Thaksin Shinawatra, said the party was considering three approaches: seeking a referendum to decide if a charter would be drafted; singling out problematic sections for amendments; or proceeding with both approaches.

 

He said he found the verdict disappointing to both sides. "Like it or not, it is legally binding," he said.

 

However, the verdict left House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont baffled.

 

He said the ruling left room for interpretation and he initially instructed a legal team to study it and how to handle the amendment bills pending the joint parliamentary final reading.

 

"Had the court's ruling been clear, it would have been easy for parliament [to decide] how to proceed," Mr Somsak said. "The ruling that a new charter can't be written isn't clear enough. It should have ruled that the third reading was unconstitutional, so we don't have to interpret."

 

Mr Somsak said the legal team would study several issues, including whether the charter amendment bills could be further used and if a partial rewrite of the 2007 charter was possible.

 

He said the legal team was expected to present its findings before parliament reconvenes on Aug 1.

 

Pheu Thai MP Suchon Chaleekrua voiced scepticism over the court's remark that it was authorised to consider the case under Section 68.

 

He said it was possible that Section 68 would be amended in a fresh charter amendment bid.

 

Pheu Thai had maintained that the court did not have the authority to accept the case for consideration under Section 68 and that it was within the Office of the Attorney-General's jurisdiction only.

 

On the other side, Tul Sitthisomwong, leader of the multi-coloured group, said the group respected the court's decision. However, he said the group would campaign against charter amendment if a hidden agenda was suspected.

 

"Any changes must be in the public interest. If we suspect any ulterior motive, we'll oppose it," he said.

 

Prinya Tevanaruemitrkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, agreed with the court's suggestion that a referendum be organised to decide if the charter rewrite should proceed.

 

He said the court did not order parliament to end the constitutional amendment process. "To ensure the charter rewrite can proceed, it is best for the people to decide," he said.

 

Democrat MPs said any move to go ahead with the third reading would be tantamount to a rejection of the court's order.

 

Democrat MP Virat Kallayasiri said the third reading could not proceed based on the ruling. He said he was satisfied with the court decision.

 

Democrat MP Thepthai Senpong said the court verdict provided a win-win situation for supporters and opponents of charter amendment.

 

He said the ruling helped defuse highly anticipated political tension after the red shirts threatened to take action if the ruling was not in their favour.

 

Worachet Pakeerut, leader of the Nitirat group of legal experts at Thammasat University, said the court's verdict was still problematic in many respects.

 

But Mr Worachet insisted that the charter rewrite process was an exercise of power by parliament as stipulated by Section 291. It had nothing to do with Section 68, which deals with the right to protect the charter. The court did not clarify this issue in its verdict, he said.

 

He questioned why the court had to forbid the entire charter from being rewritten when it had ruled that the charter rewrite bill was not intended as an attempt to overthrow the democratic administration of the country.

 

The court's logic appears to contradict itself, Mr Worachet said.

 

He said the "inconclusive" verdict had created headaches for those involved in the charter rewrite process as they are not sure how to proceed with the third and final reading of the bill pending in parliament.

 

The court should have specified whether the third and final reading of the bill should be allowed to go ahead, he said.

 

"The court's verdict means that the court has overreached its powers to interfere with the charter amendment, which is not allowed by the constitution," Mr Worachet said.

 

The court has now set an improper precedent and this means any future charter amendments must be taken to the court first, he said.

 

Key Pheu Thai member Chaturon Chaisaeng agreed that the court had wrested the power to scrutinise the charter amendment bill from parliament, which is not allowed by the constitution.

 

From this point on, the charter amendment process would remain difficult and Pheu Thai and other coalition parties may not rush to push for the third reading, Mr Chaturon said.

 

People's Alliance for Democracy lawyer Suwat Apaipak said the verdict had set a precedent allowing people to lodge petitions against perceived attempts to overthrow the constitutional monarchy directly with the court.

 

Mr Suwat said the PAD had accepted the court's ruling but would keep a close watch on any further moves by the government to rewrite the charter.

 

My link

[Gadfly]

Court drops complaints against charter amendments

 

 

The Constitution Court Friday ruled to drop the five complaints against charter amendments.

 

The court ruled that that the amendments were constitutional and the complainants were only speculating that amendments would lead to the overthrowing of the Constitutional Monarchy.

 

Da Naychun

 

I never understood how they were able to grant an emergency injunction in the first place. It was evident from the outset that the complaints were based on contrived speculation.

 

There is a few technical hurdles left, such as they cannot amend the entire constitution without first having a referendum approving an amendment of the entire constitution, but they don't need this initial referendum if they are only amending parts. Most of the constitution is uncontroversial boilerplate they don't want to amend. This means they should be able to proceed by only amending the provisions they promised to amend and want to amend.

[Horneytorney]

This means they should be able to proceed by only amending the provisions they promised to amend and want to amend.

...and do you know in details what they want to amend?

for example bring the yellow shirts who occupied the airport and the Abhisit government, who knocked down the redshirt protest to justice and amnesty for all redshirts, even the arsonists and of course also amnesty for Taksin despite a court sentenced him legally...

[Flashermac]

Fired up over ruling

 

 

 

About 30 red-shirt supporters from Pathum Thani burn coffins and pictures of Constitution Court judges outside the court on Chaeng Watthana Road to protest against the court’s charter amendment bill ruling.

 

My link