lonelywombat
April 28th, 2006, 07:06
Judges feel poll not legitimate
Joint courts to decide on jurisdiction today
POST REPORTERS
The Supreme Court judges think the April 2 elections were not legitimate, but believe it is up to the Supreme Administrative Court to decide whether to nullify the results at a much-anticipated meeting today, a source said yesterday.
The findings, the result of yesterday's meeting of the 234 judges, will be put forth at today's meeting of top judges to end the political crisis, said the source.
The elections were deemed to lack legitimacy from the beginning with the House of Representatives being dissolved for political reasons, the source said. The polls were organised in haste and the electoral process was flawed with ballot booths rearranged in a way that cost the voters their privacy.
The judges agreed the election results should be voided and believed the Administrative Court should have the honour of making the ruling because it is stipulated in the act governing the court that disputes stemming from a royal decree should be settled by the Administrative Court.
''The Supreme Court can support the court. It will look into legal matters to help the Administrative Court make a correct ruling,'' said the source.
However, Supreme Court secretary Virat Chinvinitkul said the Supreme Court was ready to act to quickly end the impasse.
''The Supreme Court is ready to rule if the Constitution Court and the Administrative Court decide they have no authority to make decisions,'' he said.
Declining to discuss the matter in detail, he said the unprecedented meeting of the judges from the three courts was likely to provide answers to legal questions, including which agency was authorised to rule on the elections.
The majority of judges in the Constitution Court are, however, against invalidation of the April 2 general election, feeling it will only prolong the political uncertainty.
A source in the court said most judges at yesterday's meeting thought revocation presented no solution to the political stalemate. Dwelling on the past by claiming the royal decrees governing the House dissolution and the April 2 general election were problematic would only add to the confusion. The judges also thought MPs-elect would probably object to the polls being cancelled.
A court injunction alone would not break the deadlock because the problem was too complex to be tackled purely on the basis of law, the judges said.
A long-term solution rested with meaningful political reform via constitutional amendments, they said.
The judges recommended the Constitution, Supreme and Administrative courts form a panel to iron out reform issues to pave the way for a new general election in six months.
The new poll would still be supervised by the Election Commission although an election court should be created to balance the commission's power in adjudicating poll disputes.
The special court would help recover the loss of public trust in the EC's handling of polls.
The judges added that while the charter was being rewritten, the opposition and the government must sign a joint declaration agreeing to the post-reform election rules.
They must also allow the present batch of MPs to do their work for six months.
A Constitution Court judge, who declined to be named, said the suggestion should satisfy all parties.
The court panel should present a better alternative than the reform proposal floated by the Thai Rak Thai party which would take longer to materialise.
Constitution Court judge Pan Chantarapan, who chaired yesterday's meeting, said the judges looked at the options available for easing the effects of the election fall-out, election flaws and the EC's authority.
The judges' proposals would be put forward at a joint of meeting of the presidents of the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court.
Mr Pan said that no complaints had been lodged with the Constitution Court seeking to revoke the April 2 polls. His court's recommendations to ease the crisis were non-confrontational and would hopefully comply with people's wishes, he added.
Akarathon Chularat, president of the Supreme Administrative Court, said today's meeting would discuss each court's scope of power and responsibility. ''It doesn't mean that we will issue a resolution forcing people to comply. The bottom line is each court must do its job.''
Mr Akarathon said the court is authorised to consider the cases that are under its responsibility.
At today's meeting will be 12 Supreme Court judges, two Administrative Court judges and four Constitution Court judge
Joint courts to decide on jurisdiction today
POST REPORTERS
The Supreme Court judges think the April 2 elections were not legitimate, but believe it is up to the Supreme Administrative Court to decide whether to nullify the results at a much-anticipated meeting today, a source said yesterday.
The findings, the result of yesterday's meeting of the 234 judges, will be put forth at today's meeting of top judges to end the political crisis, said the source.
The elections were deemed to lack legitimacy from the beginning with the House of Representatives being dissolved for political reasons, the source said. The polls were organised in haste and the electoral process was flawed with ballot booths rearranged in a way that cost the voters their privacy.
The judges agreed the election results should be voided and believed the Administrative Court should have the honour of making the ruling because it is stipulated in the act governing the court that disputes stemming from a royal decree should be settled by the Administrative Court.
''The Supreme Court can support the court. It will look into legal matters to help the Administrative Court make a correct ruling,'' said the source.
However, Supreme Court secretary Virat Chinvinitkul said the Supreme Court was ready to act to quickly end the impasse.
''The Supreme Court is ready to rule if the Constitution Court and the Administrative Court decide they have no authority to make decisions,'' he said.
Declining to discuss the matter in detail, he said the unprecedented meeting of the judges from the three courts was likely to provide answers to legal questions, including which agency was authorised to rule on the elections.
The majority of judges in the Constitution Court are, however, against invalidation of the April 2 general election, feeling it will only prolong the political uncertainty.
A source in the court said most judges at yesterday's meeting thought revocation presented no solution to the political stalemate. Dwelling on the past by claiming the royal decrees governing the House dissolution and the April 2 general election were problematic would only add to the confusion. The judges also thought MPs-elect would probably object to the polls being cancelled.
A court injunction alone would not break the deadlock because the problem was too complex to be tackled purely on the basis of law, the judges said.
A long-term solution rested with meaningful political reform via constitutional amendments, they said.
The judges recommended the Constitution, Supreme and Administrative courts form a panel to iron out reform issues to pave the way for a new general election in six months.
The new poll would still be supervised by the Election Commission although an election court should be created to balance the commission's power in adjudicating poll disputes.
The special court would help recover the loss of public trust in the EC's handling of polls.
The judges added that while the charter was being rewritten, the opposition and the government must sign a joint declaration agreeing to the post-reform election rules.
They must also allow the present batch of MPs to do their work for six months.
A Constitution Court judge, who declined to be named, said the suggestion should satisfy all parties.
The court panel should present a better alternative than the reform proposal floated by the Thai Rak Thai party which would take longer to materialise.
Constitution Court judge Pan Chantarapan, who chaired yesterday's meeting, said the judges looked at the options available for easing the effects of the election fall-out, election flaws and the EC's authority.
The judges' proposals would be put forward at a joint of meeting of the presidents of the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court.
Mr Pan said that no complaints had been lodged with the Constitution Court seeking to revoke the April 2 polls. His court's recommendations to ease the crisis were non-confrontational and would hopefully comply with people's wishes, he added.
Akarathon Chularat, president of the Supreme Administrative Court, said today's meeting would discuss each court's scope of power and responsibility. ''It doesn't mean that we will issue a resolution forcing people to comply. The bottom line is each court must do its job.''
Mr Akarathon said the court is authorised to consider the cases that are under its responsibility.
At today's meeting will be 12 Supreme Court judges, two Administrative Court judges and four Constitution Court judge