CARETAKER ROLE
Court 'can't rule' on PM's status
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra receives a Bt1 million donation from Thai-Chinese Chamber of Commerce president Boonsong Srifuangfung to help people stricken by the flooding in the North at Government House yesterday.
|
|
Senator to start new campaign after Administrative Court rejects plea against Thaksin's status as a constitutional matter
The Central Admin-istrative Court yesterday dismissed a lawsuit questioning the job status of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying the case was outside its purview. The court ruled that only the Constitution Court was empowered to judge whether Thaksin could resume office following his six-week break from politics last month. The administrative litigation was initiated jointly by caretaker Senator Karun Saingam and the People's Network for Elections. In their writ, the two complainants argued that Thaksin had relinquished his office by taking leave on April 5, therefore suspending his caretaker duties until a new government came to power. His break happened after the expiry of his government's term due to the House dissolution on February 25, which they said amounted to a departure from office as per Article 216 of the Constitution. Thaksin ended his "break" from politics and resumed work last month. In its ruling, the court said it deemed the dispute over Thaksin's job status a constitutional, not administrative, case. Under Article 96 of the Constitution, lawmakers are empowered to seek a Constitution Court review if they have cause to question the job status of any political office-holder, the ruling said. Reacting to the Administrative Court's verdict, Karun said he would start a campaign to solicit the support of about 20 caretaker senators needed to endorse a petition to activate a constitutional interpretation of Thaksin's job status. A source from the Constitution Court opposed the Central Administrative Court ruling that Thaksin's job status was a constitutional, not administrative case. The source said that the case is strictly administrative and does not concern Article 216 of the Constitution, which was cited by Karun. He said that since the case does not fall under this Article, the concerned senators cannot take recourse to Article 96 of the Constitution to seek a ruling from the Constitution Court. "Although the Central Administrative Court believes this case does not fall under Article 216, the Constitution Court does not need to follow the Central Administrative Court ruling because its ruling does not have any binding on the Constitution Court,'' he said.
|
