Jump to content

Can charter amendment follow the 1997 formula?


webfact

Recommended Posts

OPINION

Can charter amendment follow the 1997 formula?

 

COn.jpg

 

A “similar” process has been called for. The “situation”, however, is quite different. The paradox is that if the present Constitution is to be amended significantly, the only way to do it is to follow the highly-unorthodox 1997 methods. Can that happen?

 

Most people are aware that, with senators solidly empowered in the charter amendment process, there is no way the appointed members of Parliament will support potential changes preferred by the opposition. It is very unlikely, for example, that the senators would agree to abolition of the Senate or popular election of the Senate.

 

The 1997 Constitution prescribed senatorial election. That charter, however, was absolutely unusual in its origin. It was the first Thai constitution written by a popularly-elected drafting assembly. Although the Constitution Drafting Assembly’s blueprint was approved by a normal Parliament, conventional politicians dared not change the revolutionary content, which was said to be what the Thai people really wanted.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/can-charter-amendment-follow-the-1997-formula/

 

 
thaipbs.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Useless idea:

  • "Therefore, those advocating the 1997 methods are proposing that any radical idea should be made by a CDA  lookalike. All the opposition needs to do is to get the government side to agree on setting up such an assembly and letting the new body do the rest.
  • But creating another CDA is a radical idea itself. To do it, Article 256 needs to be changed in its entirety. It’s this article that gives senators tremendous power when it comes to passing any charter amendment.
  • It’s nearly impossible that senators will relinquish that power. Hence the paradox.
  • To change the charter the way the opposition wants it is virtually impossible without the CDA formula, and the CDA formula is virtually impossible thanks to senators’ power, which the opposition wants to constitutionally reduce in the first place."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Can charter amendment follow the 1997 formula?

There might be a more immediate, albeit limited, alternative.

 

Generally, an Organic Law is enacted with constitutional authority, unlike laws enacted with legislative authority. I believe that to the extent that an Organic Law can clarify or supplement the 2017 Constitution so long as it does not contradict the Constitution.

             

My reading of Articles (aka Sections) 81, 128, 131, 145 and 146 indicates that the NLA can alone pass organic laws subject ONLY to review and approval by the Constitutional Court and the King for passage. The Senate is NOT involved in the process so long as it does not constitutes a budgetary law (ie., a money bill), it has constitutional authority.                 . 

Selected passages*:

  • Section 81.  An organic law bill and a bill may be enacted as law only by and with the advice and consent of the National Assembly.
  • Section 131.  An organic law bill may be introduced only by:

    (1)  the Council of Ministers upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court or a relevant Independent Organ; 

    (2)  Members of the House of Representatives comprising not less than one-tenth of the total number of existing Members of the House of Representatives.

  • Section 132.  Unless stipulated as follows, an organic law bill shall be enacted in the same manner as an Act: (1) An organic law bill shall be introduced to the National Assembly; (2) Within fifteen days as from the date of its approval of the organic law bill, the National Assembly shall refer such organic law bill to the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, or relevant Independent Organ for opinions. The National Assembly shall have the power to amend the said organic law bill according to the recommendation of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court or the relevant Independent Organ as it deems appropriate. Upon completion, the National Assembly shall take further proceedings. 

  • Section 145.  The Prime Minister shall hold a bill already approved by the National Assembly for five days as from the date of its receipt from the National Assembly. If there is no need for proceedings under section 148, the Prime Minister shall present the bill to the King within twenty days as from the date such period lapses.  

  • Section 146.  If the King refuses His assent to a bill and either returns it to the National Assembly or does not return it within ninety days, the National Assembly must  re-deliberate such bill.

 * Published in the Government Gazette, Vol. 134, Part 40 a, Page 1, dated 6th April B.E. 2560.

      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...