Published on December 3, 2008
Judges say as cases of electoral fraud involved party executives, there was no scope for leniency
The Constitution Court yesterday disbanded the three main coalition parties - People Power, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya - and banned their executives from the electoral process for five years.
In the verdict, the court held the parties, their respective leaders and executives accountable for the electoral fraud committed during the December 23 general elections.
Although the fraud directly involved People Power's Yongyuth Tiyapairat, Chart Thai's Monthien Songpracha and Matchima Thipataya's Sunthorn Wilawan, the parties are obliged to assume responsibility for the actions of their executives.
The decision was based on the Constitution, which makes political parties legally bound to ensure clean balloting. Relevant provisions in two organic laws on elections and political parties mandate party leaders and executives to get rid of money politics. As the charges of fraud involved party executives who are required to enforce provisions against vote buying, the court had no grounds for leniency.
A political party is classified as a Juristic Entity and, under accepted legal principles, any acts committed by authorised executives are binding on the party itself.
Even though the high court issued three separate verdicts - one for each party - the details and legal arguments in all rulings were similar.
In the dissolution of People Power Party, the court spelled out three pertinent issues: Whether Yongyuth had committed electoral fraud; whether there was just cause for the party's dissolution; and whether the PPP leader and executives should also be penalised.
With regard to the first issue, the court said the Constitution laid down strict provisions to ensure free and fair elections, with the intent of weeding out politicians trying to gain power by buying votes.
The Supreme Court had initially convicted Yongyuth for rigging votes in Chiang Rai. The defence did not contest the conviction and the high court, with no mandate to examine another court's ruling, was obliged to base its decision on Yongyuth's initial conviction.
With regards to just cause for dissolution, the Constitution's Article 237 clearly calls for the mandatory disbanding of a party if its leader or one of the party executives is found linked to electoral fraud. The provision further stipulates that the party leader and its executives be banned from politics for five years. The court has no leeway in adjusting this punishment.
The high court struck down the defence argument that political parties were integral to the political system and could not be disbanded easily. However, the counter-argument spelled out that a strong, albeit dishonest, party was actually a bane to democracy and if it were left unpunished, it would weaken the political system, while people with a common political stance can always form a new party.
With regard to penalising party executives, the high court again cited Article 237 as the grounds for punishment. It ruled out leniency to mete out punishment on an individual basis.
As for the verdicts against Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya, the high court based its decision on rulings on electoral fraud from the Election Commission.
Both the cases had the same three issues as the People Power Party.
In Matchima Thipataya's case, the high court reached a unanimous decision to dissolve the party and ban the party leader and its executives for five years. It struck down the defence argument that it had no mandate to disband a party by citing Articles 68 and 237 that empowered the judicial review to penalise a party by dissolution.
It also ruled out defence claims about wrongful investigation on grounds that it was obliged to base its judicial review on the findings of the EC, which is an independent agency in charge of regulating the elections.
It also rejected the defence argument that party executives should not be punished because they were working in the caretaker capacity when the wrongdoings occurred. Under relevant provisions, caretaker party leader and executives remain accountable.
In the case of Chart Thai, the high court came to a majority decision through an eight-to-one vote to punish the party and its leader and executives. Judge Nurak Mapranee cast the only dissenting vote.
The decision was based on Monthien's conviction for fraud as per an EC ruling. The judicial arguments leading to its penalties were also based on the three pertinent issues.
The main defence argument that led to the dissenting vote was that Monthien did not play a decisive role within the party, though his job title was that of a deputy leader and executive.
Discuss
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
Judges say as cases of electoral fraud involved party executives, there was no scope for leniency
The Constitution Court yesterday disbanded the three main coalition parties - People Power, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya - and banned their executives from the electoral process for five years.
In the verdict, the court held the parties, their respective leaders and executives accountable for the electoral fraud committed during the December 23 general elections.
Although the fraud directly involved People Power's Yongyuth Tiyapairat, Chart Thai's Monthien Songpracha and Matchima Thipataya's Sunthorn Wilawan, the parties are obliged to assume responsibility for the actions of their executives.
The decision was based on the Constitution, which makes political parties legally bound to ensure clean balloting. Relevant provisions in two organic laws on elections and political parties mandate party leaders and executives to get rid of money politics. As the charges of fraud involved party executives who are required to enforce provisions against vote buying, the court had no grounds for leniency.
A political party is classified as a Juristic Entity and, under accepted legal principles, any acts committed by authorised executives are binding on the party itself.
Even though the high court issued three separate verdicts - one for each party - the details and legal arguments in all rulings were similar.
In the dissolution of People Power Party, the court spelled out three pertinent issues: Whether Yongyuth had committed electoral fraud; whether there was just cause for the party's dissolution; and whether the PPP leader and executives should also be penalised.
With regard to the first issue, the court said the Constitution laid down strict provisions to ensure free and fair elections, with the intent of weeding out politicians trying to gain power by buying votes.
The Supreme Court had initially convicted Yongyuth for rigging votes in Chiang Rai. The defence did not contest the conviction and the high court, with no mandate to examine another court's ruling, was obliged to base its decision on Yongyuth's initial conviction.
With regards to just cause for dissolution, the Constitution's Article 237 clearly calls for the mandatory disbanding of a party if its leader or one of the party executives is found linked to electoral fraud. The provision further stipulates that the party leader and its executives be banned from politics for five years. The court has no leeway in adjusting this punishment.
The high court struck down the defence argument that political parties were integral to the political system and could not be disbanded easily. However, the counter-argument spelled out that a strong, albeit dishonest, party was actually a bane to democracy and if it were left unpunished, it would weaken the political system, while people with a common political stance can always form a new party.
With regard to penalising party executives, the high court again cited Article 237 as the grounds for punishment. It ruled out leniency to mete out punishment on an individual basis.
As for the verdicts against Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya, the high court based its decision on rulings on electoral fraud from the Election Commission.
Both the cases had the same three issues as the People Power Party.
In Matchima Thipataya's case, the high court reached a unanimous decision to dissolve the party and ban the party leader and its executives for five years. It struck down the defence argument that it had no mandate to disband a party by citing Articles 68 and 237 that empowered the judicial review to penalise a party by dissolution.
It also ruled out defence claims about wrongful investigation on grounds that it was obliged to base its judicial review on the findings of the EC, which is an independent agency in charge of regulating the elections.
It also rejected the defence argument that party executives should not be punished because they were working in the caretaker capacity when the wrongdoings occurred. Under relevant provisions, caretaker party leader and executives remain accountable.
In the case of Chart Thai, the high court came to a majority decision through an eight-to-one vote to punish the party and its leader and executives. Judge Nurak Mapranee cast the only dissenting vote.
The decision was based on Monthien's conviction for fraud as per an EC ruling. The judicial arguments leading to its penalties were also based on the three pertinent issues.
The main defence argument that led to the dissenting vote was that Monthien did not play a decisive role within the party, though his job title was that of a deputy leader and executive.
Discuss
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
ThailandBuzz is a web application that allows you to submit an article that will be reviewed by all and will be promoted, based on popularity, to the main page
abhisit vejjajiva
anupong paojinda
ayutthaya
bangkok
bangkok governor
bank of thailand
chamlong srimuang
chart thai
chiang mai
corruption
don mueang airport
galyani vadhana
government house
narathiwat
noppadon pattama
pad
pattani
people power party
people's alliance for democracy
phuket
ppp
preah vihear temple
princess galyani vadhana
samak
samak sundaravej
somchai
somchai wongsawat
stock exchange of thailand
suvarnabhumi airport
thai airways
thai boxers
thai politics
thai society
thailand
thais
thaksin
thaksin shinawatra
tot
yala
yongyuth tiyapairat
ไทยแลนด์บัซซ์ เวอร์ชั่นภาษาไทย
Comments