Hej Mai Chai
Har nu en lång stund sokt i 1997 års konstitution, men fann inte något om detta.
Tacksam om du MaiChai kan redovisa källan, dvs paragrafen i 1997 års konstitution, till ditt påstående ovan.
Tack på forhand.Bossej
Här har Du en sammanfattning av domen. Med hänvisning till vilka paragrafer i 1997 års konstition den är avkunnad efter.
"
After thorough consideration of the petition, rebuttal statements from the Thai Rak Thai Party, Pattana Chart Thai Party, and Pandin Thai Party and all of the evidence of the Parties concerned, the Constitutional Tribunal found, on the factual and legal basis, the following:
The Constitutional Tribunal has jurisdiction over the case.
The filing of the petition, through the Attorney-General, to dissolve the Party is the authorized power given to the Registrar of the political parties, when a matter appears - notwithstanding wherever the source is.
The investigation of factual issue and determination of issues or arguments are within the powers of the Registrar of the political parties in accordance with the Organic Act on Political Parties of B.E. 2541. And even though, the Registrar of the political parties is the Chairperson of the Election Commission, but the action is under the order of the Registrar so it is not subject to the Organic Act on the Election Commission of B.E. 2541 or bound by the Election Commission's regulation.
The Organic Act of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand of B.E. 2540 has an equal legal standing with other general legislations. Since there has been no new legislation to either revoke or replace it, hence the cause for party dissolution that occurred before is still valid and the action that breached the Organic Act still continues to be a breach.
The Thai Rak Thai Party has no legal ground, under Section 262 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540, to rebut or question the legitimacy of the legal provision to punish political parties under Organic Act on Political Parties of B.E. 2541 Sections 66(2), (3) and (4). This is because under Section 262 of the Constitution, the right to rebut is only given to members of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Prime Minister.
Constitutional Court has the power to exercise immediate discretion to dissolve political parties under Section 63 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand of B.E. 2540, when a political party is found to undermine the Constitutional Monarchy with the King as Head of State or the acquisition of administrative power over the country through means not in accordance with the Constitution, without having to first issue an order to a political party to cease actions under paragraph 2.
Even though, the election on 2 April B.E. 2549 was annulled by the Administrative Court, it does not nullify any previous wrongdoing.
It is found on factual basis that:
The Thai Rak Thai Party had hired the Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party,
The Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party agreed to be hired by the Thai Rak Thai Party to assist the Thai Rak Thai Party,
The Pattana Chart Thai together with the Election Commission's officers amended information about Pattana Chart Thai party members to the meet 90 days requirement with the support of the Thai Rak Thai Party.
The Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party issued fraudulent letters of certification for their party members as a document for the registration of election candidates.
In addition to 8., it is found that:
General Thammarak Issarangkura na Ayudhya and Pongsak Raktapongpaisarn were placed by the Thai Rak Thai Party's leader and executive members to manage the prompt return back to power of the party. Furthermore, the Thai Rak Thai Party have never held a meeting of executive members to make clarification on the accusation either before or after the election, even though the accusation pose a significant threat to the image of the Thai Rak Thai Party. Thus, the Constitutional Tribunal deemed the action of General Thammarak and Pongsak to be binding to the Thai Rak Thai Party.
Boontaweesak Amorasil, leader of the Pattana Chart Thai Party, was involved in the amendment of its party membership records and received money from General Thammarak as a representative of the Pattana Chart Thai Party. These actions are deemed to be binding to the Pattana Chart Thai Party.
Bunyabaramipon Chinarat, leader of the Pandin Thai Party, acknowledged and consented for Mrs. Thattima Pawali to receive money from General Thammarak, as well as issued fraudulent letters of certification for his party members. These actions are deemed to be binding to the Pandin Thai Party.
The action of the Thai Rak Thai Party is deemed to violate the Constitution under section 66(1) and (3) of the Organic Act on Political Parties of B.E. 2541. The action of the Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party is deemed to violate section 66(2) and (3) of the Organic Act on Political Parties of B.E. 2541.
By violating section 66(1) and (3) of the Organic Act on Political Parties of B.E. 2541, the Thai Rak Thai Party did not uphold the key principle of democratic form of government and did not respect the law of the country. It could not maintain the form of political party that created or sustained political legitimacy to the democratic form of government of the country as a whole. Therefore, there is a reasonable cause for the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai Party. As for the Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party, they were established for the benefit of the founders or the executive members committee of their respective Parties. They did not have any status as political parties. Therefore, there is a reasonable cause for the dissolution of the Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party.
The Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27 is applicable to the cause of party dissolution under the Organic Act on Political Parties of B.E. 2541, Sections 1, 2 and 3.
The Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27 dated 30 September B.E. 2549 provides that the revocation of election rights, for a five-year period following an order for a dissolution of a political party, is not a criminal penalty. Hence, the Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27, Section 3 has a retroactive binding effect.
The revocation of election rights is to apply to all political party’s executive members at the time those acts occurred, even if they have resigned from their position before the date of the ruling, as to be in accordance with The Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27.
The Constitution Tribunal hereby issues an order to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai Party, the Pattana Chart Thai Party and the Pandin Thai Party as well as to suspend the electoral rights of 111 executive members of the Thai Rak Thai Party, 19 executive members of the Pattana Chart Thai Party, 3 executive members of Pandin Thai Party, for a period of five years, effective on the date of the order of party dissolution.
[edit] Verdict on Group 2 (Democrat Party and Prachatippatai Kao Na Party)[2]
The Democrat Party was acquitted from all charges. Most significantly, it was ruled that no related evidence supported the charge that they had bribed smaller parties to expose the involvement of high-profile Thai Rak Thai party members in election fraud in April 2006.
The court also ruled that the Democrat Party did not malign Thaksin or urge voters to cast a "no" vote in the election. It also found the party innocent of obstructing a parliamentary candidate from registering in a southern constituency. [3]
[edit] Summary Verdict
After thorough consideration of the petition, rebuttal statements from the Democrat Party and Prachatippatai Kao Na Party and all of the evidence of the Parties concerned, the Constitutional Tribunal found, on the factual and legal basis, the following:
Although the Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 3 revoked the use of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540, but the Organic Act on Election of Members of Parliament and Senators B.E. 2541 was not revoked nor replaced by new legislation. Therefore, the Organic Act on Election of Members of Parliament and Senators B.E. 2541 is still applicable.
According to Article 67 of the Organic Act on Political Parties, the Registrar of the political parties is solely responsible for the filing of cases to the Attorney-General, for submission to the Constitutional Court, not the Election Commission.
The fact that the Attorney-General filed a petition, against the Democrat Party to the Constitutional Court, on only 4 issues instead of the original 8 by the Registrar of the political parties does NOT conflict with Article 67 paragraph 1 of the Organic Act on Political Parties. This is because it is not the case where the Attorney-General decided on to file the petition.
The ruling by Constitutional Court that the general election of the members of Parliament held on 2 April B.E.2549 was an unlawful election under the Constitution of Thailand does not nullify or revoke acts of political parties, since the scope of the ruling only applies to the actions of the Election Commission.
On charges alleging the Democrat Party's leader and executive members of 1. Maligning Pol. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra while serving as Prime Minister, and 2. Inducing people to cast a 'no vote' for any candidate or party in every constituency, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that:
Since Pol. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra was, at the time, the Prime Minister thus he was a public figure. Therefore, such acts were considered lawful under the people's right to free speech.
The speech encouraging people to cast a ‘no vote' at the ballot is a given right under Article 326(4) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2540 and Article 56 of the Organic Act on Election of Members of Parliament and Senators Act B.E.2541,
On the charge alleging the Democrat Party, through Taksanai Keesun, of conspiring to defame the Thai Rak Thai Party by assisting Nipa Junpo, Ratchanu Tangsri and Suwit Ob-oon to illegally submit their candidacy for election, under Prachatippatai Kao Na Party, and then holding a press conference to accuse the Thai Rak Thai Party of hiring them, the Constitutional Tribunal found that:
Taksanai Keesun, a member of Democrat Party and formerly an assistant to Satit, DID knowingly take Nipa Junpo, Ratchanu Tangsri and Suwit Ob-oon to illegally (under the 90-day membership rule) submit their candidacy.
There was NO evidence to suggest or support that Satit, an executive member of Democrat Party, know or support the action of Taksanai.
From the transcript of the press conference by Suthep Tueksuban, Secretary-General of Democrat Party, there was NO evidence that Suthep Tueksuban accused the Thai Rak Thai Party of hiring these candidates.
On the charge alleging the Democrat Party, through Taikorn Polsuwan, of hiring Watawarit Tantipirom, leader of the Shewitteedekwa (Better Life) Party, to make allegations against Suwat Lipatapanlop, an executive member of Thai Rak Thai Party, the tribunal found the charge to be UNJUSTIFIED. The Tribunal believes that Taikorn was ONLY seeking evidence from Watawarit, since Taikorn thought Watawarit's party may be have hired by the Thai Rak Thai Party to contest in the general election.
On the charge alleging the Democrat Party of obstructing the submission of candidacy for the election of Pattama Chaikate in Songkla Province, the Tribunal believes that there was an obstruction. However, there was NO evidence to suggest that any MPs or executive members of the Democrat Party took part in such actions.
On the charge alleging the Prachatippatai Kao Na Party of issuing fraudulent letter of certification for 3 party members for the submission of candidacy for the election (knowing that they are ineligible under the 90-day rule), the Tribunal believes that Miss Issara or Pornnarin Youngprasit DID issue those letters knowing that they are ineligible.
The Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27 dated 30 September B.E. 2549 provides that the revocation of election rights of party executives, for a five-year period following an order for a dissolution of a political party, is not a criminal penalty. Hence, the Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27, Section 3 has a retroactive binding effect for this party dissolution case.
The Tribunal concludes that the Democrat Party did not commit the act as had been accused, and hereby dismisses the case and request to dissolve the Democrat Party.
The Prachatippatai Kao Na Party, however, did commit the act as had been accused, which is considered a violation of Article 66(2) and (3) of the Organic Act on Political Parties B.E. 2541. The Tribunal, therefore, issue the order to dissolve the Prachatippatai Kao Na Party and withdraw the election rights of its 9 party executives for 5 years, in accordance with Announcement of the Council for Democratic Reform No. 27 (3).
"
