Organization: Central Michigan University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:58:16 EST
From:         Elliott Parker <3ZLUFUR@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject:      TH: Tribunal rules amnesty decree still in effect

=======================  Forwarded  Message  ===========================
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:11:28+0700
From: Kamol Hengkietisak <kamol@ipied.tu.ac.th>


THE Constitution Tribunal yesterday handed down a decision
supporting the blanket amnesty for everyone involved in the May
17-20 demonstrations and subsequent crackdown.

Parliament President Marut Bunnag said the tribunal ruled that no
one could be prosecuted or brought to trial since the House
rejection of the Amnesty Executive Decree could not overturn the
amnesty retroactively.

The ruling was greeted with dismay by the relatives of victims of
the crackdown and the Students Federation of Thailand which later
burnt a symbol of the Justice Ministry during a protest in front
of Parliament House.

The tribunal voted six to two at its meeting yesterday in support
of the amnesty remaining in effect.

Mr Marut, who chaired the tribunal meeting, said the ruling
effectively quashed any possibility of prosecuting those involved
in the crackdown.

The tribunal focussed on Article 172, Clause 3 of the Constitution
which states that a decree cannot be overturned while still in
effect.

According to the ruling, the phrase means "any action which
derives from the decree, are the consequences of actions, or
benefits which have been brought or granted by the
misimplementation of the decree".

Sources said the tribunal was satisfied the clearing of everyone
involved in the May violence of any wrongdoing under the Penal and
Civil codes, as stated in Article 3 of the Amnesty Decree,
satisfied the above criteria.

Mr Marut said the tribunal deliberated the issue thoroughly and
brought down its decision based on "legal considerations" only.

It took no account of other circumstances, the House Speaker said,
apparently referring to the political pressure from relatives of
those killed and the Opposition criticisms of the Government for
referring the matter to the tribunal for interpretation.

Mr Marut said the tribunal ruling was final and should be borne in
mind by courts hearing cases related to the crackdown.

He said damaged parties could still take their complaints direct
to the courts.

People can still bring suits, but "I think the courts will turn
them down," he said.

"I am personally disturbed, but this is what the Constitution
Tribunal decided," he said.

Other tribunal members attending yesterday's meeting were Senate
Speaker Meechai Ruchuphan, Supreme Public Prosecutor Komen
Pattanapirom, Suthee Arkasrerk, Mongkol Pao-in, Banyat Suchiva,
Boonchana Attakor and Owat Sutthiwatnaruprut.

Supreme Court president nominee Pramarn Chansue, pending a royal
command endorsing his appointment, and Lt Gen Saming Trailanka
were absent.

Lt Gen Saming cast his vote supporting confirmation of the amnesty
at a tribunal meeting last Tuesday.

Mr Suthee and Mr Owat voted against the ruling and Mr Marut
abstained.

Sources said Mr Suthee and Mr Owat argued that the amnesty should
only affect those charged but whose cases were subsequently
dropped when either the police or public prosecutors decided
against prosecution.

They felt complaints could still be brought against those not yet
charged.

Mr Suthee said the Supreme Public Prosecutor had told the meeting
more than 1,000 cases, including those against Interior Minister
and New Aspiration Party leader Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyuth and
Palang Dharma Party de facto leader Chamlong Srimuang, had been
dropped.

Despite the ruling, he said people could still file complaints
with the courts against those involved in the crackdown under the
Penal Procedure Code.

Mr Suthee said the courts were duty-bound to accept the cases but
they would have to bring down a ruling which accorded with
yesterday's tribunal decision.

He also said there were loopholes in the Constitution which gave
governments a free hand in deciding whether a situation
constituted an emergency under which an executive decree could be
issued.

Mr Suthee said the ruling would set a precedent for the Government
to issue executive decrees which absolve it of any wrongdoing.

But Mr Marut denied this saying the ruling did not necessarily set
a precedent because the Constitution could be changed and
executive decrees issued in the future could be different from the
amnesty ruling.

Meanwhile the Students Federation of Thailand and a representative
of relatives of people affected by the government suppression of
pro-democracy protesters in May yesterday expressed dismay at the
Constitutional Tribunal ruling upholding the the Amnesty Decree.

Branding the Government decision to leave the issue in the hands
of the tribunal as an act of cowardice, SFT secretary-general
Supat Hasuwannakij demanded that the coalition take full
responsibility for the ruling.

He vowed that students would pursue the case in court on their own
and would campaign for amendments to the law to plug legal
loopholes so future governments could not abuse their authority to
introduce executive decrees for their own interest.

The SFT had anticipated the outcome of the tribunal's
consideration which meant the victims of the May crackdown died in
vain and those responsible would go free.

"We denounce the Government and demand that it take full
responsibility for the problem," said Mr Supat, adding that the
students had no plans to protest the decision.

He also called on the Government to take serious action to amend
the law so any future executive decrees provide genuine benefits
for the people.

Mr Supat said the Government did not need to ask the tribunal to
interpret the impact of the House rejection of the amnesty as it
could have allowed the relevant government agencies to proceed
through established procedures.

"We believe more in the courts of justice than a group of 10
people who form the Constitutional Tribunal and interpret the law
by the letter.

"The tribunal ruling can only be seen as a government attempt to
compromise its interests" he said.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU