From: kamol@ipied.tu.ac.TH (Kamol Hengkietisak)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai
Subject: Oct 15: Bangkok Post: Juridical council decides not to give opinion.
Date: 17 Oct 92 07:54:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: ipied.9210151633.AA01191
Organization: Mail/News gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: munnari.oz.au

THE Juridical Council yesterday opted not to offer an interpretation 
of the legal consequences of the Lower House's decision to reject the 
amnesty decree, throwing the whole matter into further confusion.
 
Government spokesman Abhisit Vejajiva said Prime Minister Chuan 
Leekpai may now have to leave the issue to the courts to dec~ride for 
fear he may otherwise be accused of trying to influence the outcome of 
the case.
 
Opposition leaders yesterday accused Interior Minister Chavalit 
Yongchaiyudh of playing a delaying game by seeking a legal 
interpretation from the Juridical Council.
 
They said the minister must have known the council had no authority to 
handle the issue.
 
Juridical Council secretary-general Wattana Rattanavijit said the 
council met for one hour yesterday before voting 35 to 7, with 12 
abstentions, not to accept the issue for consideration as requested by 
the Interior Ministry.
 
The Interior Ministry had asked the panel to establish whether the 
House decision to reject the amnesty decree would mean those absolved 
from any punishment would again have to be prosecuted for their part 
in the May events.
 
Mr Wattana said the Juridical Council decided against considering the 
matter on the grounds that its interpretation may lead to political 
complications -- something banned by the council's regulations.
 
Reliable sources said the Interior Ministry had known in advance that 
the Juridical Council would not accept the issue for interpretation.
 
Several council members had already voiced their disagreement to the 
proposal.
 
The sources said members felt any ruling established by the panel may 
have a binding impact on the other executive decree introduced by the 
previous government to restructure the Judicial Commission. The decree 
to restructure the Judicial Commission was also rejected by the Lower 
House.
 
The sources said that if the Juridical Council ruled that the House 
decision to reject the amnesty decree would have no effect on the 
impact of the decree, then the same would apply to the decree to 
restructure the Judicial Commission.
 
They said this would mean the major revamp made to the Judicial 
Commission following the introduction of the judicial decree would 
still be in effect, something which many judges oppose.
 
The sources claimed that several judges or legal experts who sit on 
the Juridical Council and who support this line of thinking voted 
against having the Juridical Council rule on the issue because of the 
above reasoning.
 
Mr Wattana said yesterday the Juridical Council could be ordered to 
reconsider the issue if the Prime Minister or his Cabinet thought it 
necessary.
 
But the sources said that since the Juridical Council had opted not to 
make a ruling on the issue, the Constitutional Tribunal should now be 
asked to decide the problem.
 
They also said the Interior Ministry's legal advisory committee, in 
its opinion to the Juridical Council, felt the legal proceedings 
should be revived against everyone involved in the May demonstrations 
and crackdown, warning that any ruling brought down by the council 
would set a precedent for any future legislation on similar matters.
 
However, the view of the Interior Ministry's legal advisory committee 
was not brought up for debate following the council's decision not to 
accept the issue for consideration.
 
Mr Abhisit said the Prime Minister would now have to decide if the 
Cabinet should again ask the Juridical Council to informally offer its 
views on the issue.
 
He said the Government would need to make the legal consequences from 
the House's action very clear and, in so doing, it would also need to 
avoid creating an impression that it was trying to influence the 
council to rule in its favour.
 
This is because many people feel the Government stands to either gain 
or lose from this issue.
 
Mr Abhisit said he personally felt the problem could still be settled 
in two possible ways: by the Government taking the initiative in 
asking the Constitutional Tribunal to rule on the issue or by allowing 
the courts to take the initiative.
 
He said any government request for a Constitutional Tribunal ruling 
would have no legal binding on the courts, and vice versa should the 
courts take the initiative.
 
"If the Prime Minister chooses to stay still on this problem, then it 
will mean he wants the court of justice to proceed on the case. 
Several Cabinet ministers were involved (in the May events)," he said.
 
  The Government spokesman denied that the Democrat Party was trying 
to stay aloof from the controversy. 
 
"How can we stay aloof? Problems affecting Cabinet ministers will 
eventually affect the whole coalition, of which the Democrats are the 
core."
 
Chart Thai leader Pramarn Adireksarn said yesterday the Opposition 
wanted all those who violated the law in May prosecuted, and he was 
dismayed to learn that the Interior Ministry had asked the Juridical 
Council to give an interpretation of the issue.
 
Under the 1979 Juridical Council Act, the Interior Minister has no 
power to order the Juridical Council to interpret legal ambiguities, 
only the Prime Minister can do this, he said.
 
Muan Chon Party leader Chalerm Yubamrung said he was confident Gen 
Chavalit had known his lack of authority on the issue but had 
intentionally violated the law to create confusion.
 
"I am concerned how the relatives of the dead will feel about this," 
the Bangkok MP said.
 
Pol Capt Chalerm said Gen Chavalit had said he would resign if found 
guilty of wrongdoing during the May events.
 
"I have not seen any warrant issued for him and I don't think there 
will be one."
 
Deputy Permanent Secretary for the Interior Aree Wong-araya said Gen 
Chavalit did have the authority to ask the Juridical Council for its 
view on the issue as it was considered part of his routine work.
 
"Even the permanent secretary can ask the council for its view should 
he have doubts on any legal affairs," said Mr Aree.
 
Democrat MP Preecha Suwanthat said Gen Chavalit and the Interior 
Minister's legal experts may not understand the the problem.
 
"This is not a case of violating the law, but more of a 
misunderstanding which led to them1 Neking`,egal advice from the wrong 
organisation," the legal expert said.
 
Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai said he would consult his Cabinet before 
deciding to ask the Juridical Council to make a ruling on this matter.
 
Gen Chavalit said last night he has yet to be reported on the 
Juridical Council's decision not to accept to interpret the problem.
 
He noted, however, that all parties concerned should try to uphold the 
national unity while trying to clarify the legal ambiguity on the 
issue.
 
The confusion should not be allowed to lead to another rift in the 
country, he commented.