Dissolve court, Nitirat demands

Worachet Pakeerut, a law lecturer and leader of the Nitirat Group, speaks at Thammasat University Sunday, demanding an end to the Constitution Court following its verdict on the charter amendment bid on Friday

The lecturers accused the court of abusing its authority and intervening in the work of the legislative branch by issuing a ruling last week on the government's bid to amend the constitution.
Last Friday, the court dismissed complaints that attempts to change Section 291 of the present constitution would harm the country's system of constitutional monarchy.

It stated that an amendment of the present charter should undergo a public referendum because the present constitution had been approved via a similar referendum.

Addressing a press conference on Sunday, the Nitirat Group of lecturers _ Worachet Pakeerut, Janjira Iemmayura and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul _ called for a new panel of judges to be formed to replace the Constitution Court.

Mr Piyabutr said the court's ruling was tantamount to staging a "coup".
Ms Janjira said that by ruling that it had the authority to accept complaints against constitutional amendment directly from petitioners, the court had expanded its authority beyond its constitutional scope.

The court's ruling interfered with parliament's power to amend the constitution and undermined democracy as the parliament is elected by the people, she said.

"The Constitution Court should be dissolved and another organisation be appointed to take over its roles pending the constitutional amendment," she said.

Mr Piyabutr recommended that a panel of judges be established to protect the constitutional system.
He said the panel should comprise of eight judges, to be appointed by the HM the King in accordance with the recommendation of the parliament president.

The house should elect three judges proposed by the house speaker; the senate should elect two judges proposed by the senate speaker and the cabinet should elect three judges proposed by the prime minister, Mr Piyabutr said.

Each political party should also be able to appoint a judge to sit on the panel, he said, on the condition that the judge serves or had served in the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court, and is also not a Constitution Court judge.

Mr Worachet said he disagreed with the court's ruling that the constitution could only be amended section by section and could not be completely rewritten.

He said it was difficult to change the constitution by individual sections because amending one section would affect other sections.

He said it was reasonable to rewrite a whole new charter instead.
Mr Worachet said he also disagreed with the court's ruling requiring a referendum before a charter change.

Under the current amendment bill, a constitution drafting assembly (CDA) would be formed to write a new charter and there would be a referendum afterwards on the proposed draft.
If there was a referendum before the amendment, the people would not have a new charter draft to compare with the present constitution before deciding on whether they approve of the changes.
It would cost the state more money if it had to arrange another referendum after the new charter draft was written by the CDA.

Mr Worachet said parliament might proceed with the third reading of the bill to change Section 291 right away as the court had not prohibited the process in its ruling.

He said the court did not have the authority to rule on the constitutional amendment effort, and its ruling last Friday was merely an opinion that was not binding on others.

"The amendment efforts by parliament is the performance of a duty as stipulated by the constitution," he said.

Mr Worachet called for the dissolution of the court and suggested that Section 68 of the constitution also be amended to prevent judges from obstructing any efforts to amend the charter.

Meanwhile, Rames Ratanachaweng, a legal expert of the opposition Democrat Party, insisted the court had the authority to examine the legitimacy of laws.

The Nitirat Group had to accept the court had the authority to rule on the legality of parliament's charter amendment efforts, he said.

He said Mr Worachet had studied in Germany and thus should accept the power of the court as there was a constitution court in Germany.

He accused Mr Worachet of serving the Pheu Thai Party and its de facto leader Thaksin Shinawatra by echoing the stance of the ruling party.

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said his party would meet this afternoon to discuss what it would do next regarding the constitutional amendment bill.

He said the court's ruling was not an order, but a recommendation, and that there should not be a referendum before the third reading of the bill proposing an amendment of Section 291 of the constitution.

Somrit Chaiyawong, spokesman for the Constitution Court, Sunday confirmed that the court's suggestion of a referendum had been a recommendation, not an order. Parliament has the right to consider whether to proceed immediately with the third reading of the bill to amend Section 291 of the constitution, he said.