Ignore 'unconstitutional' ruling, Nitirat lawyers say

At the press conference yesterday, law lecturer Worachet Pakeerat urged members of parliament to vote to ignore the ruling on an amendment on the election of senators. Accepting the ruling meant the legislative branch agreed to submit its power to the court and that could lead to the world’s first “constitutional state”, he alleged.

The law lecturers claim the ruling was unconstitutional because the court had no authority to rule on the case, as charter amendments are not tantamount to efforts to change the democratic regime. 

Moreover, the court also committed an unconstitutional process in reviewing the case, by taking into consideration politicians’ petitions. Under the Constitution’s Article 68, the Attorney General’s Office must act as the complainant. The court also failed to find legal reasons to support its ruling that the charter amendment was unconstitutional. This explained why it failed to announce penalties attached with the ruling.

“The court’s authority is to ensure that the minority has a stage to equally express its voice. However, this ruling is to suppress the majority voice, which is against the democratic regime. This ruling has no legal bearing. But some politicians seek to use it for their own clauses,” Worachet said.

He added that the court has the authority to scrutinise if the legislature correctly uses its power to endorse the Bt2 trillion borrowing bill. However, the charter amendments are the power of the legislature which cannot be breached.

The Nitirat group of lawyers claimed yesterday that if the Constitutional Court’s ruling on a charter amendment about the election of senators is upheld, it could pave way for the world’s first constitutional state.

Worachet told a press conference that the ruling was “unconstitutional” and set a precedent that lawmakers could no longer amend the Constitution without the court’s approval.

“This will affect a democratic regime, which clearly separates the power of the legislative and the judicial branches. Whenever another attempt to amend the charter comes up again, the opposition could seek the court’s ruling… Eventually, the court would be the establishment that authorises amendments,” he said. 

The group alleged that the court’s ruling was unconstitutional, because the court had no authority to rule on the case and the court also undertook an unconstitutional process in doing that.

“The Article 68 was drawn up on German experience, allowing the government to seek the constitutional court’s endorsement to rip off the rights of a person, if it believes an effort has been made to change the regime. In the Thai case, those lawmakers are allowed by law to amend the charter. The court can’t just assume the power to tell what the lawmakers can or can’t do,” Worachet said.

The Nitirat group also said that under Thai protocol, the Attorney General’s Office would use its power to seek the court’s approval. However, in this case, the court took into consideration petitions filed directly to the court by politicians. Moreover, this ruling involved the authority of lawmakers.

The court also failed to find legal reasons to support its ruling that the charter amendment was unconstitutional.

Worachet said parliamentarians should seek a vote to ignore the court’s ruling, which he claimed was non-binding in nature as even the court did not state penalties.

He warned that while the ruling was non-binding, it had been used by political groups to support their causes. If the situation continued, there will be no rule of law in Thai society and “it would be difficult to cure or restore the situation in the future”.