The House urgently discussed the motion! The issue of the Constitutional Court judges.

The House urgently discussed the motion! The issue of the Constitutional Court judges describing the "dissolution of the Move Forward Party", the opposition and the government in unison, "Teng Nattapong" read the code of ethics of the court in the middle of the House, asking if it violates ethics or not, confident that it is possible to debate without being wrong, asking to be at ease and not to intrude, mocking that we are MPs who have rights directly from the people, while "Adisorn" came to be a legal poem, slamming it as destroying the "scales", saying, I am not joking with you, since you have been defrocked, you must not be a black crow in the justice process. In the House of Representatives meeting, chaired by Mr. Wan Muhammad Noor Matha, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Nattapong Ruangpanyawut, a party-list MP and leader of the Prachachon Party, stood up to propose an urgent motion by word of mouth, asking the House to consider the expression of the judicial office holders in the public arena and the per formance of the independent organizations, in order to forward observations and suggestions to the Constitutional Court for further consideration. Mr. Wan Muhammad Noor reiterated before presenting the principle that since today is a meeting that may mention outsiders, we will not protect them by law because it is a live broadcast of the meeting. Therefore, we would like everyone to be careful, including if we mention independent organizations according to the constitution, we should be careful about violating the court's authority. Then, Mr. Nattapong discussed the principle of proposing the motion that following the news yesterday that was criticized by society, in the case of a Constitutional Court judge who went up to give a public lecture in Surat Thani Province, there was a direct comment to the Prachachon Party that we must thank you for dissolving the Move Forward Party, which led to the Prachachon Party receiving a donation of up to 20 million baht. I think that the expression of opinions like thi s in public by a person holding the position of a judge of the Constitutional Court must be well thought out. It is a personal attitude or an expression of attitude related to the exercise of power and duties of the person as an independent organization under the constitution. In this matter, if it is a general expression of personal opinions, I think it is not objectionable. But since it is an expression of opinions as a member of the judiciary who sentenced politicians to death, the highest penalty is the dissolution of the party, and you come out to express your opinions in response to the issue in this way, sarcastically or sarcastically, I think this is the legitimacy of the House of Representatives of the people who are listening. We are the representatives of the people who have the highest power. We should be able to question the organization under the constitution. Mr. Nattapong read the ethical standards of the Constitutional Court, Chapter 2, on ethics as values, which states that Article 13 state s that judges of the Constitutional Court must perform their duties with justice, independence, impartiality and without bias, and Article 17 states that judges of the Constitutional Court must not do anything that would damage their honor and position. 'From expressing your attitude on a public stage like this, do you think it is a neutral attitude? Is it an attitude that the public can question? Whether the Constitutional Court's decision to dissolve the Move Forward Party used personal bias in making the decision or not? I think we can question this kind of thing. In this parliament, it is a forum where we can express our opinions like this together,' said Mr. Nattapong. Mr. Nattapong also said that according to the professional ethics of judges, judges should not give lectures, lectures, or participate in seminars or discussions to express their opinions to the public, which may affect the performance of their duties and the dignity of judges. He thought that no judge would accept this case. 'This is c lear evidence that shows fear of damaging the ethics of the Constitutional Court's judicial profession… I would like to urge fellow members to agree with this motion to forward their observations to the Constitutional Court to take further action, because we insist that in terms of ethical standards, which are abstract matters, people within the organization should be able to examine each other. Therefore, you can rest assured that this is not a matter of the legislative branch using its power to harass other parties,' said Mr. Nattapong. 'We are the legislative branch, the rightful ones, who have received power from the people. What we can definitely do together is to propose a draft amendment to the constitution and the related organic laws. We have full authority to do this to make our House of Representatives deliver the dignity and rights to be the representatives of the people,' said Mr. Nattapong. While Mr. Adisorn Piangket, MP for the Pheu Thai Party, stood up to propose an urgent motion with the sa me speech, proposing the principle that he had seen the news about a judge who was of interest to the general public. He did not know whether he had intentionally said it or if he had fallen into the trap of expressing his opinion in a manner that was self-important, boastful, and insulting to a person who had been a party to the Constitutional Court. 'I respect the word court because I studied law at Thammasat University. We teach that law upholds justice, provides justice without bias and prejudice, to the point that the Father of Thai Law wrote a short poem that says, You drink alcohol and get drunk, it doesn't matter, but don't go astray to the point of being unproductive. Don't take bribes or bribes. We are the intellectual class of the judiciary. The case in the South was not a bribe, but an act based on one's own judgment. Are you still troubled?' said Mr. Adisorn. Mr. Adisorn emphasized that today we are talking about the Balance of Power, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. They bala nce each other. We are performing the duty of balancing with the judiciary. We have a lawsuit. You have decided to dissolve the party and execute the prime minister 5:4. Whichever side one leans towards, that person wins. Today, we must find a way together to amend the constitution and the method of considering the case according to your power and duty. 'We let him become a monk through the screening of the Senate. I am not criticizing him. It has been screened. We let him be a monk on the shelf because he must follow the Dhamma and discipline. He must behave like a monk and a nun. When he violates the Dhamma and discipline, he is expelled. No one gives him alms. I am talking about this alone, not the whole organization. Some people say, 'You shouldn't do this, sir. Don't be afraid.' We, the legislature and the judiciary, must be happy. We balance him out. We are not biased. We saw him speak and it was inappropriate. I don't know if he is biased before deciding any of his cases. Is he neutral? 'said Mr. Adis orn. Mr. Adisorn continued that someone told him that Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. This means that justice must not only be done, but must be believed to be done. It must not be biased and neutral. "You are still in a bad mood and joking. I don't joke with you. Are you destroying justice, intentionally or not? Today, I have to. You are destroying the scales of justice, intentionally or not. According to the motion, it is requested to be sent to the Constitutional Court. But I think it is not necessary for the Constitutional Court to make a decision because when a monk is disrobed, he must disrobe. Please don't be a black crow because it is a bad thing in the justice process. A single person can cause the justice process to lose credibility," said Mr. Adisorn. Mr. Adisorn continued that he wanted the legislative and executive judges to do their own duties, not to put themselves above others. He insisted that there was no conflict with the judges at all, it was just an ind ividual matter. If the evil finger was cut off, cut off the organ to save a life. Today, the honorable parliament, whether it is the opposition or the government, we are all legislative, we are all victims, we must protect. "You are a judge who points a finger at others for lacking ethics, but how can you not explain the other three fingers pointing at yourself? I don't want justice to be any lower. You are already high up, so stay high and judge our conflicts. But if you want to come down, come down and meddle with us. Through elections, the people will monitor you," said Mr. Adisorn. However, this urgent motion, only Mr. Rangsiman Rome, a party-list MP from the Prachachon Party, debated that his political life does not have much time left. To be honest, our issue has a flag already. He is one of the 44 people who signed the draft law on Section 112. Today, the whole society thinks that we will not last long. How long will the NACC process take for the 44 people, from receiving the petition, investigating, to giving opinions, take for him? He does not know, but he believes it will be fast. He wants to know if someone goes to file a complaint with the NACC about this kind of matter, how long will the NACC take? Will it be as fast as a young man like the 44 MPs from the former Move Forward Party? Or will it be slow like other cases? Mr. Rangsiman added that what can we in the parliament do? We are the legislature, using the power that the people have entrusted to us. We are the last institution that is protecting the highest power of the people. Our highest ethics are responsibility to the people, and the people will decide for themselves whether we should stay here or not. Is it time for us to have a common consensus to let the bad ethics of politicians who are currently using them leave the system, which is the legacy of the NCPO? Mr. Rangsiman continued that the ethics of politicians are different from cases that are enforced in the court. He confirmed that even if this parliament decides to remove the ethic s of politicians from the constitution or from the organic law, it does not mean that we are above scrutiny. We are still bound by the anti-corruption law. If there are corrupt politicians, we are still legally responsible. If they declare false assets, use their power, and commit a major sin, they must still be legally responsible. But please do not use serious ethics as in the past. Do not let this weapon that the NCPO has given to deal with politicians. We must help each other stop this weapon for the highest power that truly belongs to the people. After Mr. Chaturon Chaisang, MP for the Pheu Thai Party, and Mr. Panus Wacharasindhu, MP for the Prachachon Party, finished discussing the closing motion, Mr. Wan Muhammad Noor said that from the debate, they agreed to send the matter and observations to the Constitutional Court for further action and ordered the meeting to be closed at 6:25 p.m. .-312 319 . Source: Thai News Agency