LAW IS THE LAW V2

[Yellow_Shirt]

The Law is the Law

Hello everyone

I don’t disrespect ink on he’s post he has put a lot of effect into this I have setup a new post in which maybe give you a better idea on what it was all about.

I have spent over a week on this working and researching for the truth on this case and who knows I will probably find more if I look harder if not the forum members will.

I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.”

Albert Einstein quotes (German born American Physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity. Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921. 1879-1955)

And I will probably get attack for this post by the Dr Thaksin supports and anti Democrats but these are the facts so far.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I think this case is politically motivated?

Yes and the reason why it’s go back to the being when this case went down with FIDF I think at the time in 1985 the government did not want to pay out the money to the investors saving the government a lot money.

Did the judges get it wrong on the case 4655/2533 1985?

Yes the reason is that it clearly shows that FIDF was part of the BOT but can we blame the judges for all of it maybe not because the lawyer at the time did not see this angle of attack?????

Did the judges get it wrong on the case with Dr Thaksin?

No they were spot on with their finding which I outline to you it clearly shows that Dr Thaksin was running the show as he Prime Minister having De facto Powers even that he does not sit on the broad of the BOT or FIDI he ministers do in which he appoints then.

And any western country like America or England the judges would come to this same conclusion the judges are only interested in the facts not the crying and I don’t know the law.

Dr Thaksin Quote 2001

“I had no intention to conceal my assets. It was a purely honest mistake.”
(in 2001, crying, to the Constitution Court who let him off the hook)

And if you where a judge and saw this evidence you would come to the same verdict unless you are a blind man and was one sided on your views which there are some people on this forum.

Case Conclusion

I don’t think the Supreme courts judges would think that some of the past ghosts would bite then on the A.ss.
But they have clearly rectified the problem now with this new ruling on the politician’s powers and Dr Thaksin fell into that trap.
That why he does not want to come back as he knows he is in the wrong even the lawyer know this too he was hoping that the PPP could change some of the guideline for him..

With all this new information you can be the judge on this I rest my case
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some back ground History on the FIDF and case 4655/2533 subsection 29(ter)

Some History in what happen back then on this ruling with the FIDF

“Obviously, this declaration of guarantee is vague and does not imply a full guarantee.
Because the FIDF was formed after the 1979 and 1983–1984 crises, depositors may
not have perceived that the FIDF would hold to the BOT policy of partially paying off
depositors. However, a discontented depositor at a closed credit foncier company brought
a legal suit against the FIDF because the FIDF administered the disbursement of funds
to depositors under the 4 April Scheme after 1985. The case went to the Supreme Court,
which ruled that the FIDF had no obligation to pay depositors in full.15 After this ruling
and up to the 1997 crisis, no statements about guarantees were made by either the BOT or
the FIDF.”

14 The premiums charged to financial institutions were based on a percentage of deposits and set at 0.3%
initially and 0.4% after the 1997 crisis (BOT, 1992a).
15 The case appears on the docket as Case #4655/2533, 1990.
16 These regulations are listed in The Commercial Banking Act 1992 (BOT, 1992b) and the amendment of June 1, 1993.

The website where this comes from page 8 of 23 a little bit on the FIDF

http://econ.tu.ac.th/archan/SOMBOON/Thailand/opiela.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Thaksin Supreme Court Defence

As Thaksin and wife defended themselves that the FIDF was not an administrative agency or state enterprise, and Thaksin, as the Prime Minister, had no powers and duties to supervise, scrutinise or monitor the Fund, resulting that the land purchasing case was not a conflict of interest.

Some History in what happen back then on this ruling with the FIDF

Their defence was based around the Case 4655/2533 Subsection 29 ruling

http://deka2007.supremecourt.or.th/deka/web/search.jsp

Type in 4655/2533 in ค้นหาจากหมายเลขคำพิพากษา/คำสั่งคำร้อง then press the first red button on the bottom

It is all in Thai I know a few people on this forum have ask ink to translate into English but this a rough idea

What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Thaksin Supreme Court Verdict

Since the court ruled that the FIDF is state agency; the land purchase fell under the anti-graft act.

Section 29 (ter):

A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial
Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of
reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and
Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its
competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other
business.

Because BOT was a state Agency and FIDF was created in side BOT then it is classified the same

BANK OF THAILAND ACT, B.E. 2485 (1942)

Exhibit A http://www.thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0040.htm

Bank of Thailand Organization Chart

Exhibit B http://www.bot.or.th/English/AboutBOT/Documents/OrganCharOCT_E51.pdf

This clearly show that FIDF is in the same Organization as shown

As shown in Exhibit A and B it clearly show no separation except on policy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Section on the verdict

The Court: By unanimous resolution, holding that the Fund was the administrative agency under Section 100, Subsection (1), Subsection (3), Subsection (4) Section 122 of the National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997).

National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997).

CHAPTER \ //

Conflicts Between Personal Interest and Public Interest

Section 100. Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:

(1) being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(2) being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a party to a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(3) being a concessionaire or continuing to hold a concession from the State, State agency, State enterprise or local administration or being a party to a contract of a directly or indirectly monopolistic nature made with the State, a Government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local administration, or being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a concessionaire or a contractual party in such manner;

(4) being interested in the capacity as a director, counsel, representative, official or employee in a private business which is under supervision, control or audit of the State agency to which such State official is attached or where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official, provided that the nature of the interest of the private business may be contrary to or inconsistent with public interest or the interest of the Government service or may affect the autonomy in the performance of duties of such State official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by unanimous resolution, holding that the purchased land and all other proprieties gained in this case could not be seized under Section 33, Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code.

Part I

Declaration of Accounts Showing Particulars of Assets and Liabilities of Persons Holding Political Positions

Section 33. The account showing particulars of assets and liabilities under section 32 shall be submitted together with copies of the supporting documents evidencing the actual existence of such assets and liabilities as well as a copy of the personal income tax return for the previous fiscal year. The declarer shall certify the accuracy of the account and copies of the submitted documents by affixing his or her signature on every page thereof, prepare lists of the supporting documents accompanying the account showing particulars of assets and liabilities so submitted, and shall make the submission within such time as follows:

(1) in the case of the taking of office, within thirty days as from the date of taking office;
(2) in the case of the vacation of office, within thirty days as from the date of the vacation;
(3) in the case where the person holding a political position, who has already submitted the account, dies while being in office or before submitting the same after the vacation of office, an heir or an administrator of an estate of such person shall submit an account showing particulars of assets and liabilities existing on the date of such person's death within ninety days as from the date of the death.
In addition to the submission of the account under (2), the person holding a political position, who vacates office, shall also re-submit an account showing particulars of assets and liabilities within thirty days as from the date of the expiration of one year after the vacation of office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting on key points of the verdict of the judges

By 6-3, holding that Thaksin was a de facto supervisor of the Fund.

Function of Thailand Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is the de facto chairman of the Cabinet of Thailand. The appointment and removal of Ministers can only be made with his advice. As the leader of the government the Prime Minister is therefore ultimately responsible for the failings and performance of his Ministers and the government as a whole. The Prime Minister cannot hold office for a consecutive period of more than eight years. As the most visible member of the government the Prime Minister represent the country abroad as well as the main spokesperson for the government at home. The Prime Minister must, under the constitution, lead the Cabinet in announcing the government's policy statement in front of a joint-session of the National Assembly, within fifteen days of being sworn-in.

The Prime Minister is also directly responsible for many departments, these include: the National Intelligence Agency, the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of the National Security Council, the Office of the Council of State, the Office of the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, the Office of Public Sector Development Commission and the Internal Security Operations Command. Legislatively all money bills introduced in the National Assembly must require the Prime Minister's approval

[b]de facto director = de facto supervisor same meaning [/b]

Definition

Person who is not a de jure director but performs the acts or duties of a director, or is judged to be a director in law. Any person who is not technically a director but according to whose directions and instructions (rather than expert or professional advice) other directors and/or employees are accustomed to act is legally deemed a de facto director. Whether or not such person fulfills the qualifications of a director, or enjoys the rights and privileges of a director, he or she is generally held liable as a de jure director. See also shadow director.

By 7-2, holding that Potjaman was not a holder of political position or public authority prohibited under Section 122 of the Organic Act.

By 5-4 to say that former Prime Minister Thaksin knew about his wife’s purchasing of land from the Financial Institutions Development Fund

Everyone has a opinion on this but let’s face it we are not talking about going shopping for some dresses she liked or going on a holiday.

We are talking about a major purchase which is not small money and you just don't draw out of ATM machine

By 9-0 - The 1999 anti-corruption act is effective.
By 9-0 - Appointment of Assets Examination Committee is constitutional with authority to investigate cases.
By 9-0 - Financial Institutions Development Fund, the land seller, is a government agency.
By 6-3 - The prime minister has oversight of FIDF.
By 5-4 - Thaksin Shinawatra violated the 1999 anti-corruption act.
By 7-2 - Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra is not guilty and her arrest warrant will be cancelled.
By 7-2 - The Ratchadaphisek land plot and transaction money will not be confiscated.
By 9-0 - Thaksin is sentenced to a two-year jail term.

[Chris-TH]

Y_S, you put a lot of efforts into this thread, and i commend you for that.

That does not mean I will not be critical. I will forget about names and only talk about law.

Q1: In your opinion, is there a destinction between State Agency, State Enterprise, and a Government Agency.

That will be all for my first post.

[Chris-TH]

Well, *bumping* your thread up on the list again.

Just a short question: "Is TN full of sh*t"?

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/03/ ... 094823.php

Especially this part:

The FIDF lost about Bt1.4 trillion to bail out financial institutions during the 1997-1998 financial crisis. With principal and interest burden, the FIDF's intervention in the financial system has now become a chunk of the public debt, which exceeds Bt3 trillion, or 40 per cent of gross domestic product.


Initially, the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Thailand, which supervises the FIDF, agreed to share the burden 50/50 in paying off the debt of the FIDF spread out over a period of 30 years. The interest burden alone amounts to Bt70-Bt80 billion a year. As it has turned out, only the Finance Ministry is shouldering this debt repayment for the FIDF, while the Bank of Thailand has insisted that it does not have profits from its operation to pay for the FIDF's debt.


The FIDF debt is highly political between the two rival agencies. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he has assigned Korn to discuss this issue with the Bank of Thailand but he would like it to be resolved amicably rather than creating further unnecessary conflict.

What does that mean??? BOT Supervises FIDF and the MOF has to negotiate a settlement over costsharing??? I thought that the "direct line of command" was PM->MOF->BOT->FIDF and the money came from the same pocket. Now it turns out the the PM and MOF has to negotiate an agreement with BOT?? Why dont the PM just say "PAY"???

No direct control????????

[Yellow_Shirt]

Well, *bumping* your thread up on the list again.

Just a short question: "Is TN full of sh*t"?

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/03/ ... 094823.php

Especially this part:

The FIDF lost about Bt1.4 trillion to bail out financial institutions during the 1997-1998 financial crisis. With principal and interest burden, the FIDF's intervention in the financial system has now become a chunk of the public debt, which exceeds Bt3 trillion, or 40 per cent of gross domestic product.


Initially, the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Thailand, which supervises the FIDF, agreed to share the burden 50/50 in paying off the debt of the FIDF spread out over a period of 30 years. The interest burden alone amounts to Bt70-Bt80 billion a year. As it has turned out, only the Finance Ministry is shouldering this debt repayment for the FIDF, while the Bank of Thailand has insisted that it does not have profits from its operation to pay for the FIDF's debt.


The FIDF debt is highly political between the two rival agencies. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he has assigned Korn to discuss this issue with the Bank of Thailand but he would like it to be resolved amicably rather than creating further unnecessary conflict.

What does that mean??? BOT Supervises FIDF and the MOF has to negotiate a settlement over costsharing??? I thought that the "direct line of command" was PM->MOF->BOT->FIDF and the money came from the same pocket. Now it turns out the the PM and MOF has to negotiate an agreement with BOT?? Why dont the PM just say "PAY"???

No direct control????????

Hello Chris TH

Very interesting but like I have found This will fall on the PM as a De facto power but sounds like the blame game at the moment.
when they have a problem BOT just wipe there hands of it.

Thanks for that good reading specially when you start reading Law is the law 2

[Chris-TH]

Yeah Y_S, I still read a bit (when I'm not making bad jokes). The term "De Facto" tickles me a bit. Here is one more definition from the wikipedia:

"De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning the fact" or in practice but not necessarily ordained by law. It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "by law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact".

It has one big implication. It should be proven that the allerged control conforms to the definition: "concerning the fact" or in practice. A claim is not sufficient.

One more implication (if it is proven that there was de facto control) pops up if you apply a bit more from that definition: "de jura". If it was de facto control and not de jura control, the crime is not "conflict of interest", but rather "abuse of power".

I hope that I dont make you dizzy with my remarks.

[Yellow_Shirt]

Yeah Y_S, I still read a bit (when I'm not making bad jokes). The term "De Facto" tickles me a bit. Here is one more definition from the wikipedia:

"De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning the fact" or in practice but not necessarily ordained by law. It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "by law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact".

It has one big implication. It should be proven that the allerged control conforms to the definition: "concerning the fact" or in practice. A claim is not sufficient.

One more implication (if it is proven that there was de facto control) pops up if you apply a bit more from that definition: "de jura". If it was de facto control and not de jura control, the crime is not "conflict of interest", but rather "abuse of power".

I hope that I dont make you dizzy with my remarks.

Hi Chris Th

you really know how to make a person turn to drink with this.

so what it is saying is their are couple way it can be apply

Under the wikipedia Thai Prime Minister is De facto as he control over the ministers?

what we need now is sloth input on this???

[Chris-TH]

Y_S,

no that means if he was not in de jura control, de facto control must be proved by actual cases of excercising such control. Notice "concerning the fact" and practice.

EDIT:

Ready for more headache??? Section 100 (1) was violated?. Just stumbled over some more interesting text in the complete Section 100 (just after 100 (4)):

The positions of State officials prohibited from carrying out the activities under paragraph one shall be prescribed and published in the Government Gazette by the N.C.C. Commission.

I guess that the NCCC forgot to do that??? Otherwise it would have been a clear case without "de facto" allegations

[Chris-TH]

Nope Sloth, I just work with computers. My speciallity is communication, debugging, and trouble shooting. That requires the abillity to analyze and "see" the things that are not exposed.

[Chris-TH]

I think that the gift that was given to man (and woman) to destinguise us from animals was reasoning, on top of the pure survival instinct.

Would be sad if we throw that gift away.

[Yellow_Shirt]

Hello Chris TH and Sloth

For Chris because he like giving headaches to me so I found this for him to play with i read a little bit but interesting.

I just copy from word so it set out not to good on here.

There is more on this give you and outline in the being this is the word version.

http://www.lawreform.go.th/lawreform/index.php?option=com_content&task=downloadmedia&file=7601.doc&filetemp=7601.doc&lang=th&id=53


Annex I

Draft
Public Consultation Act,
B.E. ….


……………………………………….
……………………………………….
……………………………………….

.………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………….
Whereas it is expedient to have a law on public consultation;
.………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………….
.………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………….

Section 1. This Act is called the “Public Consultation Act, B.E. ….”.

Section 2. This Act shall come into force after the lapse of ninety days as from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.

Section 3. In this Act:

“State Agency” means central administration, provincial administration, local administration, State enterprise under the law on budgetary procedure and public entity established under the law on public entity;
“Affected person” means a person who is affected directly by the granting of permission to, or the making of decision on, any project or activity;
“Committee” means the Public Consultation Advisory Committee.

Section 4. The Prime Minister shall have charge and control of the execution of this Act, and shall have the power to issue Ministerial Regulations for the execution of this Act.
Such Ministerial Regulations shall come into force upon their publication in the Government Gazette.

CHAPTER I
Public Consultation Advisory Committee


Section 5. There shall be the “Public Consultation Advisory Committee” consisting of the Deputy Prime Minister entrusted by the Prime Minister as Chairperson, Secretary-General of the Council of State, Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers, Secretary-General of the National Economic and Social Development Board and not more than ten qualified persons appointed by the Council of Ministers as members.
The Secretary-General to the Prime Minister shall be a member and secretary of the Committee.

Section 6. A person appointed to be qualified member shall have knowledge in public consultation method or shall be expert in the field of national security, law, political science, social science, economics, science, management or environment, and shall not be a political official, person holding political position, director or person responsible for the administration of the political party.

Section 7. A qualified member shall hold office for a term of four years.
In the case where a qualified member vacates office before the expiration of his or her term or an additional qualified member is appointed while the previously appointed qualified members are still in office, the term for interim appointee shall be equal to the remaining term of the previously appointed qualified members.

A qualified member who vacates office upon the termination of the term under paragraph one shall remain in office to perform his or her duty until the newly appointed qualified member takes office.
A qualified member who vacates office upon the termination of the term may be re-appointed for not more than two consecutive terms.

Section 8. In addition to vacating office at the end of the term, a qualified member shall vacate office upon:
(1) death;
(2) resignation;
(3) being a bankrupt;
(4) being an incompetent or quasi-incompetent;
(5) being imprisoned by a final judgement of imprisonment, except for a petty case or an offence committed through negligence.

Section 9. At the meeting, the presence of not less than one-half of the total number of members is required to constitute a quorum.
In the case where the chairperson does not present at meeting or is unable to perform his or her duty, the presence members shall elect one among themselves to preside over the meeting.
The decision of the meeting shall be by a majority of votes. In casting votes, each member shall have one vote. In case of an equality of votes, the person who presides over the meeting shall have an additional vote as casting vote.
The member having interest in the matter under consideration shall not attend the meeting or vote for such matter.

Section 10. The Committee shall have the following power and duties:
(1) to give recommendation on the issuance of the Ministerial Regulations under this Act;
(2) to specify rule on public consultation in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(3) to inspect the performance of duty under this Act of a State agency;
(4) to give advice and provide training to both State agency and private sector for the execution of this Act;
(5) to make known of public consultation to both State agency and people;
(6) to summit a report on the execution of this Act to the Council of Ministers at lease once a year;
(7) to study or make a research for developing public consultation techniques;
(8) to carry out other duties entrusted by the Council of Ministers or the Prime Minister.

Section 11. In the performance of duty, the Committee shall have the power to summon any person to give a statement of facts, explanation, recommendation, and opinion in any matter or to submit relevant documents for its consideration as it deems appropriate.

Section 12. The Committee shall have the power to establish a subcommittee to be responsible for works under its duties.
The subcommittee may be established by the field of expertise or by responsible area.
The provisions of Section 9 shall apply to the meeting of the subcommittee mutatis mutandis.

Section 13. For the purpose of organizing public consultation, the Committee shall make the list of experts to be appointed as a Consultation Tribunal.
The list of experts under paragraph one shall be made under the rule and procedure as specified by the Ministerial Regulations.

CHAPTER II
Public Consultation Methods


Section 14. A State agency shall, before granting permission to, or making decision on, the carrying out of a project or activity which may affect the quality of environment, health, sanitary condition, the quality of life or any other material interest of individual or a local community, disclose information, explanation and justification of the project or activity to the affected person and shall consult therewith.
The carrying out of duty under paragraph one shall comply with the provisions of this Act, except where otherwise is required by specific legislation.
The result of consultation shall be taken into consideration of a State agency in granting permission to, or making decision on, the carrying out of a project or activity. In this regards, the granted permission or decision shall have no such impact as prescribed in paragraph one, except where there is necessary to grant permission or make decision irrespective of such impact for the benefit of the country or public at large, and preventive or remedy measure for damage caused by such impact has been established.
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any project or activity approved by the Council of Ministers that it shall be carry out without delay for maintaining security of the State, national benefit or public interest.

Section 15. A State agency shall comply with Section 14 paragraph one where:
(1) public consultation is required by law;
(2) environmental impact assessment is required by law;
(3) such project or activity possess characteristic or scope as specified by the Ministerial Regulations.
If the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister, or the Minister having charge and control of the execution of a State agency thinks it is appropriate to consult with person affected by a project or activity apart from those specified under paragraph one, the State agency shall comply with the provisions of this Act.
The group of affected persons may altogether lodge the request to the Committee or entrusted subcommittee in order to order State agencies concerned to carry out consultation under this Act if they deem that the granting of permission to, or making of decision on, the carrying out of a project or activity of a State agency has impact as prescribed in section 14 paragraph one to their community. The rules and procedure on lodging a request shall be specified by the Committee.

Section 16. Information about project or activity to be given to public are as follow:
(1) substantial matters of the operation;
(2) place, method, process and operation period;
(3) justification;
(4) good and bad impact, including remedy measure;
(5) cost-benefit relationship analysis after having considered impact under (4);
(6) other information on nature of the operation.
The Committee shall have the power to provide guideline or recommendation on giving information under paragraph one.

Section 17. In making consultation, one or more methods shall be selected from the followings by a State agency after having considered the nature of project or activity and the understanding and acknowledgement of affected person:
(1) individual interview ;
(2) consultation via television;
(3) survey;
(4) submitting opinion via information technology;
(5) information exchange;
(6) informal meeting;
(7) small group discussion;
(8) workshop conference;
(9) advisory meeting;
(10) public debate;
(11) public participation;
(12) other methods as specified by the Ministerial Regulations.
The rules and procedure for each consultation method under paragraph one shall be notified by the Committee.

Section 18. Before considering a project or activity under Section 14, a State agency shall determine appropriate methods for consultation under Section 17 in order to give information and to hear preliminary opinion of affected person.
Notification on consultation made by the State agency under paragraph one shall be notified at least within the operation area of the project or activity. Such notification shall contain information on consultation methods, duration, place and other sufficient information which enable affected person to understand and express his or her opinion. In this regards, the Committee may specify guideline to be complied with by a State Agency.

A State agency shall inform the making of such notification to the Committee.
A State agency shall organize consultation; but it may ask for an expert from the Committee.

Section 19. After having consulted under Section 18, a State agency shall disclose the consultation result to public under the rules specified by the Committee.

Section 20. A State agency shall take the consultation result made under Section 18 into its consideration. If a State agency deems that it is necessary to continue such project or activity and preventive and remedy measures for impact as proposed by affected person have been established or the affected person agree with such project or activity, such State agency shall notify to public the justification to grant permission to, or making decision on, the carrying out such project or activity.

The notification under paragraph one shall specify date, time and place for objection. The objection period shall be reasonable, but not less than fifteen days. If there is no objection within such period, it shall be deemed that the consultation for such project or activity has been carried out.
The objection shall specify the point of disagreement with reason.

Section 21. If there is an objection under Section 20 paragraph two, a State agency shall organize a formal consultation.

Section 22. The formal consultation shall be conducted as follows:
(1) a State Agency shall ask the Chief Justice of the Administrative Court of First Instance having jurisdiction over the operation area of such project or activity to appoint experts from the list under Section 13 to be the Consultation Tribunal. A State agency shall also inform such implementation to the Committee;
(2) the Consultation Tribunal shall gather all information concerning with such project or activity as well as objection so as to determine appropriate method for consultation. The consultation method shall be one or more of the methods as prescribed in Section 17;
(3) the Consultation Tribunal shall notify consultation method to public. Such notification shall contain necessary information of the project or activity, consultation issue, representative of the affected person who made an objection, technical assistance for affected person, and consultation process;
(4) after having consulted, the Consultation Tribunal shall propose a report on the result of consultation to the State agency and the Committee and shall disclose such report to public.
The Committee shall have the power to notify rules on for formal consultation under paragraph one.

Section 23. A State agency, after having received a report on the result of formal consultation, shall, before granting permission to or making decision on the carrying out of the project or activity, take such report, the necessity of the project or activity, preventive and remedy measures to manage impact, public interest, and appropriate alternatives into its consideration.

Section 24. All charge incurred in the consultation process shall be paid by a person asking for permission or person having the right to carry out a project or activity. If a project or activity is carried out by the government, all incurred charge shall be responsible by a State agency responsible for such project or activity.
All charge under paragraph one shall also include operation expense of the Consultation Tribunal at the rate determined by the Committee.

Section 25. In the case where a State agency fails to provide an information under Section 16 or fails to conduct consultation under Section 18 or Section 21, the interested person shall have the right to file a motion to the Administrative Court so as to order such State agency to conduct in compliance with this Act.


Countersigned by:

………………......

Prime Minister