Organization: Central Michigan University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:59:43 EDT
From:         Elliott Parker <3ZLUFUR@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject:      TH: Juridical Council gives no opinion

=======================  Forwarded  Message  ===========================
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:33:34+0700
From: Kamol Hengkietisak <kamol@ipied.tu.ac.th>

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.