POLITICS
Ackaratorn: Temple not just a policy issue |
Supreme Administrative Court president Ackaratorn Chularat insists the Central Administrative Court has the authority to rule against the cabinet's resolution on the Preah Vihear temple issue.
Still, the court president said yesterday he did not pay any attention to Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's remarks querying the Central Administrative Court's role in the case.
Mr Samak made his remarks during his weekly Pood Ja Prasa Samak (Samak-Style Talk) TV programme, citing a group of law lecturers from Thammasat University, led by Worajet Phakeerat, who said that the Central Administrative Court's injunction against the cabinet's support of Cambodia's attempt to list the temple as a World Heritage Site may be not within the scope of the Administrative Court's authority.
Mr Samak said he agreed with academics who believed that the ruling interfered with the work of the administration authority.
The academics feared it could set a precedent and would damage the credibility of the administration in dealing with other countries.
The prime minister said the ruling ran counter to the checks-and-balances system between the administrative, legislative and judicial branches, he quoted academics as saying.
Mr Ackaratorn said the Central Administrative Court did not base its decision to hand down the injunction on the petitioning alone. The court has considered the evidence and concluded that national interests could be irreversibly damaged.
As a result, the court decided to order an injunction, but did not rule whether the cabinet or Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama have mishandled the issue, said Mr Ackaratorn.
"I don't dispute that it is the executive branch's authority to issue administrative policies, but the Preah Vihear case is not only a policy matter. It also concerns the government's actions, on which the Administrative Court can rule," he said.
Mr Ackaratorn said the prime minister's remarks could not be considered contempt of court, as they would be classed as opinion rather than fact.
However, the citation of academic comments could be considered contempt of court on certain occasions, depending on the motivation and intention of those citing the comments.
"The prime minister's comment doesn't bother me. But for the country, it's a dark joke," said the Supreme Administrative Court president.
Mr Ackaratorn said he was surprised Mr Samak did not realise that without the Central Administrative Court's injunction, Thailand could lose part of its territory to Cambodia.
"I wondered if he didn't see the point or that he didn't have enough knowledge base about the issue," he said.
On the report that Suthin Khlangsaeng, People Power party MP for Maha Sarakham, who chairs the House committee on independent organisations, said he would look into the administrative court's authority, Mr Ackaratorn said courts are not classed as independent organisations under the constitution.
Courts are separated institution with independent cross-examination mechanism. Mr Suthin should have studied the constitution carefully.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Next
