Hej
I Bangkok Post kan man läsa att medlemmarna av Election Commission (EC) står på sig och hävdar att deras begäran om upplösning av det demokratiska partiet var laglig och korrekt genomförd och baserad på tidigare prejudicerande dommar, och att dom inte ens har brutit mot den 15 dagars regel som Högsta Domstolen påstår, enligt EC ska dom 15 dagarna börja räknas ifrån den 12 april 2010 men Högsta domstolen sätter på egen hand en annan datum nämligen 17 dec 2009 vilket är helt fel enligt EC.
Så EC friar sig helt i denna fråga och hänvisar till liknande fall där tre partier upplöstes Thammatipatai, Palang Dharma och Thammachart Thai år 2007, där användes EC.s datum och sätt att bestämma tidpunkt för när processen inleddes, men i det senaste fallet ändrade Högsta Domstolen detta för att kunna lägga ned fallet, det verkar vara både olagligt och omoraliskt.
Och EC poängterar också att nästa dom om dom 258 miljonerna baht som donerades olagligt till Demokraterna inte har någon 15 dagars regel alls eftersom dom går under paragraf 95, så det ska bli skoj att se vad mutkolvarna presenterar då, inte minst för att få höra deras Svenska fans bortförklaringar till uppenbar korruption och våldtäkt på rättssystemet och demokratin.
Mvh Isan Lover
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/209253/ec-hits-back-at-critics-of-its-actions
EC hits back at critics of its actions
Case against Democrats 'perfectly legitimate' Published: 2/12/2010 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
Members of the Election Commission insist its request that the Constitution Court disband the ruling Democrat Party was legitimate and based on the court's past verdicts.
The EC has come under mounting criticism after the court dismissed its case against the Democrats on a technicality.
The Constitution Court voted 4:2 on Monday to drop the case in which the party was accused by the EC of misusing a 29 million baht grant from the commission for campaigning for the April 2, 2005 general election.
The four judges who voted to dismiss the case said the EC chairman, the ex officio political party registrar, failed to submit the case to the court within 15 days of being notified in his capacity as registrar that the grant might have been misused.
See also:
EC hits back at critics of its actions
Democrats 'win' on technicality, public still has doubts
The 15-day period is specified in Section 93 of the Political Party Act.
Sodsri Satayathum, a commissioner, said after the EC meeting yesterday that the 15-day time frame should have begun on April 12, 2010.
The court, however, believed the process started on Dec 17 last year.
Ms Sodsri said that on Dec 17 Apichart Sukhagganond, the EC chairman, had not given his opinion on the case in his capacity as political party registrar.
"Our legal interpretation is based on the court's past verdicts in three dissolution cases," she said.
Ms Sodsri said the court ruled to dissolve three small political parties - Thammatipatai, Palang Dharma and Thammachart Thai - in 2007 with the court's verdict stipulating that the period of the cases started from "the date that the issue appeared before the political party registrar".
The verdict stated the process started on the day the registrar decided the case should be filed with the court.
Ms Sodsri said that on Dec 17, Mr Apichart, in his capacity as political party registrar, resolved to set up a committee to further investigate the dissolution case despite the fact the EC had resolved to file the case with the court. The investigation took three months.
The EC considered the findings on April 12 and recommended the registrar file a case with the court requesting the Democrats' dissolution.
That day, Mr Apichart gave an opinion that a case should be filed with the court based on the EC resolution. The case reached the court on April 26.
"Why do we [the commissioners] have to resign as requested by some academics when we did everything by the law," Ms Sodsri said.
Commissioner Somchai Juengprasert said he agreed with the minority judges who considered as legitimate the EC's process of filing the request.
Mr Somchai said Mr Apichart was concerned about criticism that his work was substandard.
"He feels that society is viewing him negatively. He has shared his feelings and says he is disheartened and feels uncomfortable with the criticisms," Mr Somchai said.
"You should ask if he will resign,"
Mr Somchai denied a report that Mr Apichart had encouraged all election commissioners to resign.
EC secretary-general Suthiphon Thaveechaiyagarn said election commissioners discussed the issue yesterday and Mr Apichart asked the other commissioners to confirm if they wanted him to resign as had been reported by the media. They denied it.
Mr Suthiphon said the EC had resolved to wait for an official copy of the court verdict and would consider issuing an explanation later.
Meanwhile, Constitution Court judge Jarun Pukditanakul said only one of the four judges who decided to drop the dissolution case cited the EC's failure to meet the 15-day deadline.
He said the other three judges considered the dissolution request illegitimate because the registrar never considered the Democrat Party as having done anything wrong, nor called for the party's dissolution.
The three judges stood firm in insisting the registrar must demand dissolution first and then seek endorsement from the EC before proceeding with filing a request with the court.
Another Democrat dissolution case over the alleged failure to declare a 258 million baht donation will not be affected by the 15-day time frame as it concerns a different section, Section 95 of the Political Party Act. It imposes no deadline for submission of the case, the EC said.
