From: ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong)
Subject: Tribunal rules Amnesty decree still has effect (fwd)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:45:34 GMT
Keywords: Thailand


From kamol@ipied.tu.ac.th Mon Nov  9 20:55:17 1992
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:11:28+0700
From: Kamol Hengkietisak <kamol@ipied.tu.ac.th>
Message-Id: <9211091711.AA24619@ipied.tu.ac.th.tu.ac.th>
To: post-thai@ipied.tu.ac.th
Subject: Post Nov 10: Tribunal rules Amnesty decree still has effect
Cc: trin@ipied.tu.ac.th, yongyuth@ipied.tu.ac.th
Status: R


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.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai