[ad_1]
March 20, 64 – Former Deputy Speaker of the Democratic Party (PPP), Mr. Chaowmeebao, posted on Facebook about the case of the vote on the draft constitutional amendment that was annulled in Agenda 3, with the following details:
Vote on draft constitutional amendment agenda 3 Be careful, people who threaten to sue will be sued for themselves.
In the event that Mr. Srisuwan Chanya, Secretary General of the Constitutional Protection Organization of Thailand and Mr. Nathaporn Topprayoon prepare to petition against the Senate and Senate that participated in the draft amendment to the Constitution for Agenda 3 on March 17 to the Committee. The NACC to offend the 208 senators and senators in accordance with article 235 of the constitution.
Until a lot of people get confused that Don’t make a fuss, just sue the court. Even the exercise of the rights of the OSMEP to vote to agree or disagree. With a motion in the Chamber that is exclusive to the Constitution. By claiming to violate the ruling of the Constitutional Court that had been issued “Parliament has duties and powers to prepare a new constitution. In which the people with the power to establish the constitution must have a referendum before the public wishes to have the new constitution? And when the draft new constitution is finished It must be provided to the public The referendum whether or not the new draft constitution is approved once again.
Which, when considering the previous sentence, I have yet to see if there are any messages prohibiting voting on the third order of business. Despite the decision that the amendment to Section 15/1 resulted in the repeal of the current constitution. It only points to that step. When preparing a new constitution, people should ask first. In which if the vote on agenda 3 has already been carried out, a referendum must be held Which corresponds to the decision that requires a referendum before the draft of the new constitution In this regard, there are still 2-way opinions, some of them that do not they can vote. The ruling has not yet been finalized and the Constitutional Court ruling did not make it clear that voting on Agenda 3 was prohibited. How are the decisions of the Constitutional Court interpreted? Can they vote or not? Some members have even proposed a motion to the Council to submit an application to reapply to the Constitutional Court. And most importantly, said resolution is not an approval of the law of the state of Manu to be applied in one place. But it is a resolution to configure the RSS to proceed with the drafting of the constitution. That it is still in the process of holding a referendum. Therefore, when it was proposed to vote on the third agenda, Mr. Paiboon Nititawan and the President of the Meeting requested the resolution. It is the privilege of each member to agree or disagree. It is the discretion that everyone must respect. That’s why I didn’t see where it was illegal. Because to tolerate OSMEP under Section 235 of State Tham Noon, there must be clear intentions of corruption or crimes against government positions. Or violate serious breach of ethical standards.
“I saw that This case cannot be compared to the Yingluck government. Because the facts are completely different At this time, there were no illegal steps in the constitutional process. While I was in the era of the Yingluck government Trying to fix the origin of the Senate There is a problem for parliamentarians to insert their cards instead. In addition, the content also falls under the rule of thumb. Violation of the constitution year 50, article 68, paragraph one, the case is clear that the parliamentarians who Vote on that moment I was guilty. Causing a shout at the NCCC, then I saw that both MPs and senators who vote for agenda 3 need not be scared. Mr. Srisuwan and Mr. Natthaporn Menacing On the contrary, I want both deputies and senators La vote on agenda 3, together, they sued the two people, accused of knowing that no crime has occurred, but instead informed the competent official in criminal investigation that they were committed the crime. And charges of intimidation of threats to their independence in the performance of their duties in good faith. From MPs representing the Thai people Who should not be mandated by anyone To provide an example case
[ad_2]
