Share this on:
 E-mail
148
VIEWS
2
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not vetted for CNN

  • Click to view SiamM0vement's profile
    Posted November 29, 2013 by
    SiamM0vement
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand

    More from SiamM0vement

    Thailand Constitution Court's Verdict upon Amendment of the Constitution for Senator Source

     

    Constitution Court's Verdict upon Amendment of the Constitution for Senator Source November 20, 2013 (by Ronayos At Gmailcom, https://www.facebook.com/notes/ronayos-at-gmailcom/คำแปล-ภอังกฤษ-คำพิพากษาศรธนคดี-ร่างแก้รธนม116-ที่มาของสว-20-พย-56/681561798544288)


    After the general election in July 2011, Pua Thai party under fugitive convicted Thaksin gains the majority in the House of Parliament. Their missions under Thaksin mandate are (a) laundering Thaksin, (b) earning from huge corruptions and (c) demolition of the existing democratic structures to ensure long term security of his tyrant regime. They openly declare abolishment of the constitution and the courts which are check and balance structures against their army of Thaksin's minions through amendment of the constitution.

    The previous attempt to topple the whole 2007's constitution through amendment of article 291 prematurely failed during the final stage of the parliament approval in July 2012 when the Constitution Court passed the verdict that the 2007's constitution has been approved by the national referendum, if the parliament wants to reset the whole consitution, it should be approved before hand by the national referendum. Therefore, the bulk reset of the constitution was stalled. But Pua Thai looks for other loopholes.

    Moreover, Thaksin orders his Pua Thai coalition to pass the public 50-year-long-debt 670-billion-dollar borrowing bill to finance the highspeed train project and amendment of constitution articles 68, 116, 190 and 237. Article 68 involves the check and balance intervention by the Constitution Court against any undemocratic steps to government power. Article 190 enables public and parliament check-and-balance over the government's negotiation with foreign counterparts. Article 237 counters electoral frauds by barring political rights and terminate any guilty political party.

    Article 116 sets the origins of senators into two separate sources, i.e. from general provincial elections and self-selection from various professional groups or professional associations, in order to ensure that people's representatives to form the Senate would come from separate sources and be independent from political parties, in order to counter corruptions among politicians.

    Being inter-independent is of paramount importance to ensure definite check and balance against the lower house, the government, the court and other independent check-and-balance organization. Virtually all of the ideas behind 2007's constitution stem from 1997's constitution which was designed to counter corrupt politics - the biggest problem of Thailand.

    Failing several attempts to launder Thaksin in the first two years of Yingluck's PM term because of PAD's protest in 2012, in the last quarter of 2013 Thaksin orders full throttle on passing the the big lot "full-house" amnesty bill which would include his corruption and Yingluck's from 2004 to 2013, not only his red-shirt protesters' violent rallies.

    The amnesty bill has been opposed from all directions, even from ideological red-shirts and grass roots who have been suffering most from Yingluck government's failures. Also, the draft amnesty bill designed to include Thaksin as well as Yingluck's all corruptions, is against the anti-corruption international charter and is disputed by UN.

    Disgracefully, Thaksin had to order a temporary retreat because hundreds of thousands took to the street. The bill is now in dormant for 6 months after the Senate's rejection.

    Incidentally, the next in line of Thaksin's offensive move is draft amendment of article 116. After the lower house's and Senates' approval, 312 MPs and senators under Thaksin's influence approved the draft, Yingluck hastily proceeded to the final stage of the legislation that is the King's signature without waiting for the Constitution Court's verdict. The plaintiffs include independent 40-senators group, anti-thaksin people and Democrat party the opposition.

    Because of Thaksin's urgency, Pua Thai's coalition in the lower house and senators under Thaksin's influence, rush the draft bills at full speed by day-and-night house meeting, ignoring and skipping several critical legal requirements. Knowing that they would be caught guilty of the crimes, Pua Thai party publicly and rebelliously boycotts and refuses to accept the Constitution Court's authority from the onset of the proceedings. They deny the court's hearing and any would-be proceeding. As a result, they refuse to be present in the court or submit any evidences and statements to the court.

    On Novermber 20, 2013, the Constitution Court passed the verdict upon the amendment of article 116 which sparks another devastation of Thaksin's regime. Here below is the verdict.

     


    แปลจาก http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9560000144300
    The Constitution Court has deliberated the complaints, the plaintiffs' evidences and documents as well as ordered the defendants to submit the final statement. Now, the court has enough evidences to rule. Thus, the verdict will be upon two issues as follows.
    First issue, Whether or not the deliberation process of the draft constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand is in the manner of illegal acquisition of the government power and unconstitutional.

    Second issue, Whether or not the amendment of the draft constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand is in the manner of illegal acquisition of the government power and unconstitutional.

    Before considering both issues above, the court has to initially consider whether or not the Constitution Court has the authority to rule upon the amendment of the constitution.

    Any democratic countries have their objectives to establish plans and mechanisms to protect public rights and freedom by allowing the public roles to partake in governing the country and to check the exercise of the state authority. As well, they create among political institutes various check-and-balance systems which are all for balancing the exercise of sovereign power which belongs to the public and is subjected to the principle of division of the authority into three parts, namely: legislative power, administrative power, and jurisdiction.

    As we can see from the preamble of the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand which is the country's supreme law which expresses the intention of the constitution that the draft has the joint purposes of Thai people to preserve the independence and national security, to cherish all the religions, and to respect the beloved King as admirable head of the nation, the constitutional monarchy is to be the way to govern the country, to protect public rights and freedom by allowing the public roles to partake in governing of the country and to tangibly check the exercise of the state authority, to assign political mechanisms to balance both legislative body and administrative body for efficiency in governing under the parliamentary system, as well as to enable the courts and other independent bodies to perform correctly, honestly, and justly.

    From such principles, it is obvious that the purpose of this constitution is for political bodies or institutes to carry out their duties correctly, justly, independently and honestly without conflict of interests, for the public benefits of all Thais. It does not wish any political bodies or institutes to all forms of abuse the authority and all forms of unjust. Moreover, it does not wish any political bodies or institutes to exploit any laws to claim for or to support as basis for their own or their crony's personal benefits.

    Although democracy makes decisions following the majority, but if the majority ignores, or selfishly exercises the power or violates the minority without respecting to reasons and without guarantees for minority to comfortably coexist, how can it be counted as democracy? Instead, it becomes majority dictatorship and explicitly contradicts to the governing system of the country. This important principle has been confirmed all along that there must be measures to prevent ones who gain the position to exercise people's sovereign power not to arbitrarily abuse the power for personal or for particular group's benefits, by holding the principles of division of sovereign power which is authority belonging to all Thais, in order that each authorized body or political institute is in the position to properly check and balance others to scrutinize and properly counterbalance. That is not to divide free territory to be independent from others to arbitrarily or haphazardly exercise the authority. If any party is left with absolute authority without being checked and counterbalanced, it would be highly tempted to cause damages and lead the country to ruin because of astray indulgence of the state power holder.

     

    Sovereign-power-exercising bodies, no matter head of the state, the parliament, the cabinet or the courts, have been authorized by the constitution. Therefore, their authority must be limited both in terms of the form and the essence and resulting in their exercise of the power cannot be contradicted or against the constitution. As a result, the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand brings in the rule of law to govern the exercise of power of all parties, all bodies and all government units, to be not only under the principle of power explicitly authorized by the law but also according to the rule of law principle.

     

    Claiming as a majority without considering minority, in order to arbitrarily exercise the authority to achieve goals or objectives despite conflicts of self or group interests against national interests and public peace and order, and any acts which would lead to national disasters and ruin or extensive division among people, contradict to the rule of law as stated by article 3 clause 2 of the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, as implied by article 68. All exercise of the law and power must be honest, not corrupt, not spurious, and without hidden agenda. Otherwise, the majority honest people of the nation would lose their due benefits to authorized people or group of people who unjustly exercise the power. Rule of law therefore is the way to govern from the natural justice principle which is pure just, without bias and without self and hidden interests. Rule of law therefore is above the tangible written law and the parliament, the cabinet, the courts as well as constitutional and other state bodies must abide by.

     

    As for the principle of democracy which means the government of the people, by the people and for the people, not the government following a particular person or any particular group and not the government which bases only from the election.

     

    Since the government principle in democracy has another important component, any authorized organization or institute who always claim their victory of the election by the people, but actually follow someone's or a particular group's mandate, cannot be a democratic government which intend to benefit the public as a whole under the rule of law. Democracy does not mean only being elected or election victory of politicians because the elected majority only means reflection of eligible voter's wishes in each election. It does not mean that the representatives can exercise the power without respecting rightful and just causes under the rule of law.

     

    Meanwhile, this constitution specifies the Constitution Court for an important role to check and balance the exercise of power to follow the rule of law under the rightful control of the constitution. This is the philosophy of the government in democratic regime which would enable concrete protection of the people's rights and freedom as endorsed by the constitution, along with the maintenance and preservation of the supremacy of the constitution as one can see from article 213 clause 5 which states that the verdict of the Constitution Court is final and obligatory for the parliament, the cabinet, the courts and other state bodies. In addition, article 27 which states that the rights and freedom obviously or subtly approved by the constitution or by the ruling of the Constitution Court are guaranteed to be protected and are directly obligatory to the parliament, the cabinet, the courts and the constitution organic bodies and other state bodies in legislation, law enforcement and all law interpretation.

     

    After thorough deliberation, it is seen in this case that the plaintiffs claim the rights to defend the constitution according to article 68 clause 2 by filing to the Constitution Court claiming that the defendants carried out measures to abolish the Constitutional Monarchy or measures to acquire administrative authority with unconstitutional means, therefore, the Constitutional Court should have the authority to rule.

     

    First issue, Whether or not the deliberation process of the draft constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand is in the manner of illegal acquisition of the government power and contradicted to the constitution.

     

    (1) Whether or not the draft amended constitution involving sources of senators, which was used in the joint convention of both houses of parliament, is the same one as what submitted to the secretariat office of the House of Representatives acting as the secretariat office of the parliament

     

    The plaintiffs claim that there are several discrepancies between the draft constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand and the copies which were distributed to the MPs on the first round, the principle acceptance stage.

     

    In this case, for the court's deliberation, the court ordered the secretariat of the parliament to submit the original copy of the draft amended constitution which was presented to the parliament for deliberation in the first round, the principle acceptance stage. Mr.Suwijak Nakwacharachai, the parliament secretariat submitted to the court on November 12, 2013. Examination of the secretariat's submission reveals the draft amended constitution which was presented to the parliament possess hand-witten page numbers starting from: the letter addressing the House Speaker; the name list of the MPs who presented the motion, the name list of the MPs who co-presented up to page 33. But on the next pages which are the record of the principles and reasons, the draft amended constitution and its analytic summary neither have page numbering nor hand-writen message. Additional examination reveals the font used in the page 1 to 33 is different from the font used in the record of the principles and reasons, the draft amended constitution and its analytic summary.

     

    Whereas the attached documents in the plaints of the first and second plaintiffs who claim that they were handed out for the joint parliamentary convention possess hand-written appending next to the draft constitution title on the page of the analytic summary. Also, they possess sequential numbering starting from the letter addressing the House Speaker requesting to submit the draft amended constitution, the name list of the MPs who jointly presented the draft amended constitution motion, and its analytic summary, making a total of 41 pages which also use the same single kind of font from the first to the last page.

     

    Moreover, when taking into the deliberation, the motion documents requesting the amendment of the constitution related to article 190 which Mr.Prasit Pothisuthon proposed, according to the secretariat has submitted to the court, it reveals hand-written sequential numbering starting from the letter addressing the House Speaker; the name list of the MPs who presented the motion, the name list of the MPs who co-presented, and its principles and reasons up to the last page which is its analytic summary. In addition, there is the hand-written appending words "amended (number.../year....)" next to the draft title "Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand" on the page of the analytic summary of the amended constitution.

     

    As for the font used for printing, it is the single same font type from the first to the last page. The feature of page numbering from the first to the last page and the correction of the title of the draft is of the same font from the first to the last page as in the plaintiffs' documents received from the parliament's convention.

     

    From above evidences, it is thus considered that the draft amended constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand which was submitted to the parliament's deliberation on the first round, the principle acceptance stage, and distributed copies to members of parliament for the convention, is not the original draft which Mr.Udomdej Ratanasathien had submitted to the secretariat office of the House of Representative on March 20, 2013. Instead, it is another newly published draft which has several different texts from the original.

     

    Although Mr.Suwijak Nakwacharachai testified that the documents after admission may be corrected if there are errors which should be only minor such as typos, not editing which would contradictory to the original principles. If major editing had been present, there should have alerted motion co-signers to check the draft amendment after such editing.

     

    In fact, it turns out that there are several changes of the important principles from the original draft, i.e., there is an additional principle by amending article 196 clause 2 and article 241 clause 1. Crucially, the amendment of article 196 would allow senators and ex-senators whose terms have finished, to be eligible for the post reapplication without waiting for another period of two years in between.

     

    Also, the proceeding appears to be concealing of facts, without notifying all MPs that there was a new draft made. When facts are settled that in the joint convention of the parliament, in the first round, the principle acceptance stage, the draft constitution about the senator origin which was presented by Mr.Udomdej Ratanasathien on March 20, 2013, is not the one that was deliberated. Instead, without MPs' endorsement, it is the newly made draft which has several other principles different from what Mr.Udomdej Ratanasathien presented. As a result, the proceeding of the draft amended constitution which the parliament accepted the principles, subjected to this plaint, is against the constitution article 291 clause 1.

     

    (2) Whether or not the date setting for modification of the draft amended constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand is legal by the constitution.

    Debate or expression of ideas in legislating process is fundamental rights of MPs, particularly those who would modify the motion, have reserved to modify the motion, or commissioners who reserve their comments. They duly have the rights to debate and express their reasons for the issues of modification-of-the-motion, reservation the modification-of-the-motion, or for what they have commented.

     

    For this issue, the evidences in the case and the testimony to the court during the investigation, reveal that the first round and the second round, the first and the second defendants alternately presided the convention. In the first round, fifty seven of debate requesters, modification-of-the-motion requesters, and the modification-of- the-motion reservers, and comment reservers were denied the rights with the claim that those comments are against the principles, although no debate was heard yet.

     

    The first and the second defendants, followed the majority vote in the convention to terminate the debate. It is seen that despite the termination of the debate is for the first and the second defendants to rule and even with the majority votes supporting the termination of the debate, the ruling and the majority votes must neither override the duties of MPs nor ignore the minority's comments. Premature termination of the debate and the adjourn of the convention in order to force the convention to vote, is therefore, illegal exercise of power to benefit the majority with bias and against the rule of law.

     

    Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that the timing for modification of the motion is illegal.

     

    They claim that after the convention accepted the principles in the first round, on April 4, 2013, there were requests to modify the motion at 15 and 60 days for which the convention's regulation stipulates that the parliament convention must vote for the length of time. Before the vote, there was a trouble with quorum which did not qualify as the constitution states. The vote was then not carried out. The first defendant ordered the time for submitting the motion within 15 days from the date of the parliament's acceptance of the principles. But there was an opposer. The first defendant then called another convention on April 18, 2013, in which a resolution of 15 days for modification of motion was passed. However, the first defendant concluded that the time to be counted for 15 days must start from April 4, 2013. Therefore, the actual time for modification of the motion was not 15 days as determined by the convention and leaving only one day for MPs to present the modification motion.

     

    As for motion modification, it is the right of MPs to propose their ideas and sufficient time is needed for MPs who wish to modify the motion should know the exact time to submit the request. This is the right to carry out the duty of MPs under the constitution. The timing of the motion modification may not be backward. Instead, it must be counted from the date of the convention's passing the resolution.

     

    If the time is counted backward, there would be only one day left for requesting motion modification which is against the regulation of the convention and unfair, therefore contradictory to the constitution article 125 clause 1 and clause 2 as well as the principle of the rule of law in the constitution article 3 clause 2. Thus, the timing for modification of the motion is illegal and against the constitution article 3 clause 2 and article 125 clause 1 and clause 2.

     

    (3) Whether or not the methods of personal identification and voting in the deliberation of the motion to amend the constitution relating to sources of senators, is constitutional.

    Upon consideration of the important principles of parliamentary democratic government, it is obvious that MPs are very important to the system because those are representatives through people's election or selection, in order to exercise legislative authority on behalf of the people.

     

    However, under the Constitutional Monarchy, the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand article 122 clearly stipulates that MPs and senators are representatives of all Thais without any commitment to other mandates or influences. They must carry out the duty with honesty for the collective benefits of all Thais without conflict of interests. Also, their duty must follow the rule of law as stipulated in the constitution article 3 clause 2 which states that the parliament, the cabinet, the courts as well as constitutional and other state bodies must abide by the rule of law.

     

    As for the exercise of the authority of MPs, as representatives of all Thais who are actual owners of sovereign power, the constitution article 126 clause 3 sets one important principle relating to the authority in legislature that one MPs may cast one vote in each vote except the vote is tie, the Speaker of the convention may cast a decisive vote. Therefore, in each vote of each MP performing the duty, the self identification to vote is specific to each individual. They have to identify themselves in each convention to deliberate any motion by themselves and may cast only one vote in each issue.

     

    Any deeds falsifying the vote casting must be considered unconstitutional and against the intent of the constitution. Having deliberated, it is seen that in this case, the plaintiffs have eyewitnesses to testify along with crucial evidences, that is DVD recording footage of three episodes of such deeds, showing that a certain MP was applying electronic ID cards to vote on behalf of others in a voting machine during the deliberation of draft amended constitution related to sources of senators.

     

    For this, Miss Rangsima Rodrasmi, a Democrat MP, as a witness of the second plaintiff and fourth plaintiff, testified with the three video clips, to confirm that there was such person inserting several electronic ID cards into a voting machine and press the button for identification and vote on behalf of several others in each voting session. According to the testimony of Mrs.Achara Juyuenyong, head of audiovisual department, secretariat office of the parliament, each minister and MP has one personal electronic ID card in order to identify oneself to check quorum and to vote. Another set of spare copy of the cards for each one is kept with the office is to be used if any MPs do not bring their cards Another set of spare copy of the cards for each one is kept with the office is to be used if any MPs do not bring their cards along.

     

    In addition, the sounds heard in the video clips are corresponding to the sounds of the recorded video of the televised the convention of the parliament and the convention report which is the same period of time of the joint parliament convention mentioned in the plaints. The recorded video is the evidence which the secretariat of the House of Representatives sent to the Constitutional Court.

     

    Also, during a witness interrogation, the parliament secretariat who saw and listened to the video clips testified that he remembered the voice of the House Speaker which was presiding the convention at that moment. Additionally, Miss Rangsima Rodrasmi, a Democrat MP, as a witness of the second plaintiff and fourth plaintiff, testified with photos from the video clips submitted by the second plaintiff, indicated that the 162th defendant, an MP, was serially inserting several electronic ID cards into a voting machine and serially pressed the identification button several times.

     

    Moreover, the plaintiffs' witness testified to confirm that she. without personal adversary and conflicts, recognized this defendant well. Despite this complaint, she still conversed as usual with him because she has been an MP for 10 years and was following, checking and making complaints about the abuse of the ID cards to vote on behalf of others all along. Mr.Naris Thongtirat, in particular, asked her assistance to take photos and videos for the evidences in the filing.

     

    On inspection of the photos shown by the witness to the court, a side view of a person's face is seen and can be confirmed that it is Mr.Naris Thongtirat, the 162th defendant, who wore the same-colour suit as appeared on the video clip when he was holding a number of electronic ID cards of more than two, more than each MP is supposed to have. He was seen inserting and removing such electronic ID cards in the card-reader slot and pressing the button on the reader continually. Thus, such acts are misbehaviours of an MP in using ID cards for identification and in voting with multiple electronic ID cards.

     

    From the evidences and the testimony during the investigation, the video and eyewitnesses' testimony supporting the video of the televised parliament convention at the time of voting for the draft amended constitution relating to the source of senators are obvious that several MPs did not come to vote in that event and let another MPs cast the votes on their behalf in the deliberation of the draft amended constitution.

     

    Such proceedings not only violate the fundamental principles of being member of parliament which supposedly represents all Thais and should have performed the duty without any commitment to other mandates or influences. They must have carried out the duty with honesty for the collective benefits of all Thais without conflict of interests as stipulated by the constitution article 122. Such proceedings are also against the parliament convention regulation and the principles of honesty which the MPs have pledged according to the constitution article 123, as well as contradictory to the principles of voting as stipulated by article 126 clause 3 which permit one MP to cast one vote in each voting. Thus, that casting of votes was corrupt, not following the intent of all Thais because it comes from illegal proceedings, against the parliament convention regulation and unconstitutional as mentioned above. It is then considered an illegal resolution of the parliament in deliberation proceedings of the draft amended constitution.

     

    The second issue to deliberate is: Whether or not the amendment of the draft constitution (number.../year....) of the Kingdom of Thailand is in the manner of illegal acquisition of the government power and unconstitutional.

     

    The amendment of the constitution according to the draft amended constitution, which the plaintiffs filed the complaint to the Constitutional Court to deliberate, possesses several changes in issues of practice of senators. Therefore, the deliberation must be whether or not such draft amended constitution abolishes Constitutional Monarchy, or for anyone to unconstitutionally acquire the government power.

     

    It is seen that the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand was drafted with the 1997 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand as a template of which several principles about properties of senators have been changed to prevent troubles as what happened under the 1997 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.

     

    In detail, it has been stipulated that there are selected senators in equal proportion with elected senators to form the Senate, in order to provide opportunity for people in all sectors and all occupations to jointly perform in the Senate to carefully benefit the country. Also, the properties of senators are also set to be independent from politics and MPs. For example, parents, spouse and children of MPs or political-post holders are prohibited to be senators. Relationship with political parties and other political posts are prohibited to senators for 5 years.

     

    The 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand stipulates that the Parliament comprises of 2 Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to balance each other. By this manner, the role of senators is to be a checking body, screening MPs' works and counter balance against MPs' authority by the power of checking and MPs revocation in case of MPs being accused of: unusual wealth indicating corruption to the duty, unconstitutional abuse of power against the law, or severely violation or not following ethical standard as stipulated in article 270.

     

    Having deliberated senator's authority, it is seen that the intention of the constitution is to free senators absolutely from MPs, resulting in stipulated prohibition of close interrelationship. Otherwise, there would be no straightforward scrutiny and contradictory to the principle of check and balance against each other, which is the basic principle of this constitution.

     

    According to the plaints, the amendment of this constitution is a backward change to the drawbacks in the past which are sensitive drawbacks risky of distrust and disunity of all Thais. It is an attempt to bring the country backward into the darkness, allowing the Senate to return to be a college of family, relatives, and spouses, losing the status and potential of wisdom for the House of Representatives to become a reflection of the same group of people, destroying the essence of having two houses, leading to monopoly of the state authority, excluding partaking of all people of various branches and various occupations, affecting the Constitutional Monarchy and allowing collaborators to unconstitutionally resume the government authority against the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand which has been approved by all Thais through the national referendum.

     

    In addition, the amendment of the source of senators to only come from election which is the same source as MPs, would make it as a single parliament out of the two, without difference and independence from each other, absolutely destroying features and essence of two parliamentary system. The amendment of the source and properties of senators to allow relationship with political partisans or MPs and significantly destroy principles of check and counterbalance of the two parliamentary system, enabling political partisans to gain absolute control over the parliaments without checking and counterbalancing, would affect the Constitutional Monarchy and open loopholes to any relevant party in this deed to gain unconstitutional authority to govern the country as stipulated by the law.

     

    Moreover, the matters about legislature processes of organic laws for election of MPs and senators in the draft amended constitution article 11 and article 11/1 are also against the Constitution because such organic laws enactment would be unduly shortened, not following the constitution article 141 which stipulates that the draft constitution must be scrutinized by the Constitution Court before hand. This is against the check and balance which is a principle in democracy and would allow the political partisan to arbitrarily legislate with majority and free from scrutiny.

     

    With reference to the above ruling, therefore, the court rules with the majority of 6 to 3 that the process of deliberation and the resolution to amend the constitution by all defendants in this case, is unconstitutional and against article 122, 125 clause 1 and clause 2, article 126 clause 3, article 291 and article 3 clause 2.

     

    The court rules with the majority of 5 to 4 that the draft amended constitution has essential matters which are contradictory to basic principles and intents of the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. Therefore, the defendants have committed the deeds which are acquisition of the government power with unconstitutional means, not stipulated by the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand and against article 68 clause 1.

     

    As for the plaintiffs' requests to disband the relevant political parties and revoke voting rights of those parties' directors, it is seen that it does not fit the condition according to the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand article 68 clause 3 and clause 4. Thus, such requests are lifted.

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story