An opinion piece written by Arun Saronchai appeared on the Thai Enquirer this Thursday, in which he criticizes the Constitutional Court and the creative legal way in which the Court votes on retaining its own chairman. Below is a full translation:
The judges of the Constitutional Court are embroiled in a new dilemma that reveals major moral holes within the court. This should make legal scholars in Thailand and the general public concerned about the court's verdict.
The issue at stake is the age of the current President of the Constitutional Court, Worawit Kangsasitiam. Worawit will turn 70 in March. According to the {former} 2007, judges of the Constitutional Court cannot be more than 70 years old and cannot serve nine years. And according to the {current} constitution of 2017, however, that age limit of 70 years can be extended to 75 years, but judges cannot serve on the court for more than seven years.
The dilemma here is that Worawit is about to turn 70 and it is also his eighth year in the Constitutional Court. That means he has to leave his seat under the 2007 constitution because of the age restriction or under the 2017 constitution he has to leave his seat because of the term limit.
The Thai Constitutional Court, in all its glory and legal know-how, proposes to mix and match the two constitutions, combining the age extension clause of the 2017 constitution with the term limit of the 2007 constitution, so that Khun Worawit to stay at court.
Of course, some members of the court have opposed this, but the most recent vote shows a 5-4 support for this mix and match. If this is actually implemented, Thailand would become the first country in the world to allow Supreme Court justices to pick the legal picks from two separate (one of which replaced) legal directives in order to give themselves more power.
This is the same court that saw fit to dissolve several parties over technicalities, to remove a prime minister from office for having a cooking show pay him a small stipend and a court that had several politicians banned from office for several years. This is the same Constitutional Court that said Thammanat Prompao* his drug conviction in Australia did not prevent him from taking office in Thailand because "it didn't happen in this country".
One of the highest courts in the country has found a legal loophole, and not even a good one, to keep their president. Let us remind you again that this is the same Constitutional Court that has jailed people for contempt and criticizing the court and its decisions.
This is the same Constitutional Court that decides political life or death of parties. All this for the better part of two decades, time and time again it has ruled in favor of the establishment and military-backed governments.
Maybe now we can all see the court for what it really is.
*Thammarat Prompow, former minister in the current cabinet. Has been convicted of drug trafficking in Australia, see also: https://www.thailandblog.nl/nieuws-uit-thailand/plaatsvervangend-minister-voor-landbouw-thammanat-prompow-beschuldigd-van-drugshandel/
This is Thailand! With the next new constitution, they should make the appointment lifelong. Are you all over…
I think there is only 1 current Constitution in Thailand.
So if one wants to keep the man, the Constitution must be changed.
All those other arguments are – wrongly – dragged in with the hair.
If they get away with this, it's the gate of the dam, because it is, after all, Thailand's highest judicial body.
Then from every constitution Thailand has ever known – and there are quite a few – anyone can choose the articles that best suit the desired outcome.
Jurisdiction then becomes practically impossible, because one party declares articles from certain constitutions applicable and the other party declares articles from other constitutions to be applicable.
You might as well not have a constitution.