The government-sponsored charter amendment to Section 190 is unlawful, the Constitution Court ruled yesterday, dealing another blow to the government's poll hopes.
Jarun Pukdithanakul reads out the ruling as seen on television screen.
The ruling is expected to have legal implications for the caretaker government, which proposed the draft amendment. It provides grounds for an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and if found to have committed wrongdoing by the NACC, the caretaker cabinet will be required by law to cease its duties and face possible impeachment and a five-year political ban.
In such an event caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and the 35 members of her current cabinet would not be able to take any political posts, even if they are returned to parliament in the Feb 2 general election.
Wirat Kalayasiri, the former Democrat MP who asked the charter court to intervene, confirmed he would launch a campaign to seek the impeachment of those involved in the passage of the unlawful charter amendment.
A total of 20,000 eligible voters are required to sign a petition asking the NACC to start an impeachment process.
The NACC has already pressed charges of misconduct against 308 former MPs and senators for their role in passing a separate charter amendment dealing with the composition of the Senate.
The draft charter amendment to Section 190 sought to give the government almost full authority to commit the country to almost all international agreements without having to seek parliamentary approval and without public participation.
In its ruling yesterday, the Constitution Court handed down decisions on both the content of the draft amendment and the process by which it was pushed through parliament.
It found the amendment process was flawed as opposition MPs were blocked from properly debating the draft.
The court said the chairman of the meeting in the first reading had cut short the debate despite there being eight hours of allotted time remaining.
The chairman also allocated 15 days for the period in which the lawmakers were allowed to propose changes, which the court said was not long enough.
The court said cutting short the debate in the first reading constituted an abuse of authority.
A special committee vetting the amendment draft also broke meeting regulations and violated Section 3 (2) and Section 125 (1) when it failed to allocate enough time for the lawmakers to propose changes.
Section 3 (2) requires the country's power branches to uphold legal principles while Section 125 (1) stipulates the House and the Senate speakers must follow parliamentary rules in conducting meetings.
"An amendment to Section 190 is crucial and has significant impacts on national administration. It should be considered with thoroughness and transparency," the court said.
"It is not to be amended to allow the executive branch to use it without listening to the views of others."
However, the court said the amendment's second reading did not violate the charter.
The court also ruled the content of the amendment would damage the checks-and-balances system while giving the government excessive authority to sign international agreements.
Under the present version of the constitution, any treaty or international agreement which affects sovereignty, has extensive impacts on national economic or social security, or which commits the country to international trade and investment, must receive approval from parliament before the government can proceed.
The amendment sought to reduce the scope of international treaties and agreements that need parliamentary approval.
"The amendment affects the separation and balance of powers. It is against the principles of the charter that wants international treaties to be examined before being ratified," the court said.
The ruling rejected a defence claim the parliamentary approval process caused delays. A charter amendment had been made to specify which types of treaties should be subject to parliament scrutiny.
The amendment violated Section 3 (1) and (2).
"[The amendment] was to help a group of individuals without taking into consideration the rights to gain access to the details of international treaties under Section 122," the court said.
The amendment also violated Section 68, which prohibits anyone from overthrowing the democratic system with the King as head of state, the court said.
The ruling was read out by judges Thaweekiat Meenakanit and Jarun Pukditanakul.
In its ruling, the court affirmed it had the authority to accept the petition for consideration, noting the petitioner had exercised the right to defend the charter.
In November last year, the charter court also ruled against the separate charter amendment involving the make-up of the Senate.
A total of 308 ex-MPs and senators currently face charges of misconduct for their role in supporting the amendment draft.