• 
• 

Yesterday, the criminal court announced that it will hand a verdict on an alleged Bt546-million tax-evasion case involving Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra on July 31.

On July 8, the Supreme Court on criminal offences of political office holders is due to hold the first hearing on the Ratchadaphisek land case in which Thaksin is alleged to have abused his power while in office.

On the same date, the Supreme Court will also give its verdict on election frauds allegedly committed by Yongyuth Tiyapairat, the former Parliament president and Thaksin's close ally.

On July 9, the Constitutional Court will rule whether public health minister Chaiya Sasomsub is qualified to serve as Cabinet member, following his failure to publicly declare personal assets properly.

On the same date, the Supreme Court will also rule whether Vattana Asavahem of Pua Pandin party, a member of the coalition government, is guilty in a corruption case.

On July 28 and July 30, the court will also decide whether it will hear another two cases against Thaksin and related people, involving the issuing of two- and three-digit lotteries and the granting of a Bt4-billion loan to Burma.

Overall, the Thai judiciary now has a heavy responsibility.

Back in 2006, the judiciary, which is one of the country's three sovereign powers, with the other two being the executive and legislative branches, also played an important role.

For example, on May 8, 2006, the then Constitutional Court nullified the controversial April 2 general election and related polls.

On July 25, 2006, the Criminal Court handed a verdict against the Election Commission's then last three members who refused to take responsibility.

Thirayuth Boonmee, a widely respected social critic, then described both unprecedented decisions as part of the judicial-review process.

In defence, Thirayuth argued that judicial review had become necessary because Thailand's representational democracy had its inherent weak points, resulting in the failure to fully abide by the intent of the Constitution.

The Thammasat University lecturer also suggested back then that judicial review, if undertaken seriously, could help reform the country's political system in the long run.

He cited India and Israel as examples where the high courts often expand their scope to cover more cases so that ordinary citizens, too, can be protected by the law.

In this context, the Thai Supreme Administrative Court's recent ruling against the privatisation of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) was a case in point in which the judiciary serves as the final check-and-balance mechanism on the executive branch's authority.

The ruling was against the government in the Egat case in which poor people could be hurt by the power agency's listing on the stock market.

Asked if judicial reviews or the judiciary's "increasingly activist" role in politics would be counter-productive, Thirayuth said the judicial process should be seen as an integral part of the overall democratic process.

"Judicial reviews are just like another check-and-balance mechanism of a democratic government. They are in a parallel [movement] with the democratisation process. The philosophy of justice is much older than that of democracy."