Academic Network Point out that the court must notify the people, clues to withdraw insurance, Anon-Mike

Academic Network Point out that the court must notify the people, clues to withdraw insurance, Anon-Mike

Date Sep 7 Academic Network for Civil Rights (MP) Issued a statement from the Academic Network for Civil Rights (MP) in The courts must exercise their power on behalf of the people. Serve the people
Raise and defend the rights and freedoms of people based on the principles of the rule of law and democracy. Saying
According to the Criminal Court On September 3, 2020 an order was issued to revoke the bond.Mr. Anon Nampha (Attorney Anon) andMr. Panupong Chadnok (Mike) in the “Juvenile Release” case under the investigator’s bond revocation request.

The network of academics for civil rights (MP) saw that The exercise of jurisdiction in such cases has a constitutional problem. At the same time, the use of power by the court since the coup of May 22, 2014 has been incompatible with the role of the judiciary in the democratic regime.For the following reasons

Follow the news, press follow the line fresh news

1. Article 29 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand provides for criminal cases. It will be presumed that the accused or the accused is not guilty. And you will not be able to treat that person as a criminal until a final judgment has been made that the actual crime has been committed. For this reason, the arrest of the accused during an investigation should be taken only if necessary and exceptions are made.

There must be a reason that is serious enough to limit the freedom of the accused, such as the behavior of the accused to flee. Destroy the evidence OR there is danger or damage that will result from the bond, but in the case ofAttorney Anon and Mike The two behaviors didn’t seem like they were either way. It has always affirmed the constitutional right to act. The arrest of attorneys Anon and Mike thus limits a person’s freedom for no good reason. It is an illegal exercise of power and contrary to the rule of law recognized by the constitution.

2. Stipulation of conditions of bail without action In the same way as a fact that was alleged in another case. There is a constitutional problem, that is When the actions of both people have not yet been convicted, it is a crime. The court cannot establish a condition that prohibits the act, which is not yet a crime. This is especially true when doing so is a constitutionally guaranteed exercise of freedom of opinion and freedom of peaceful assembly. Such restrictions on freedom should only be enacted by laws enacted by legislators.

Although the last paragraph of article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the jurisdiction of the court to prescribe the conditions for the bond to be fulfilled. But the exercise of that power must also consider the purpose of the bail law and the principle of innocent presumption. And since his actions were not found guilty, the court stipulates the conditions that prohibit the act again in the same way, thus treating the accused as a criminal.

Furthermore, article 112, last paragraph of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stipulates that in a bond contract, an obligation or condition for a provisional release is not required to execute a bond in a way that prohibits the accused. The use of the aforementioned constitutional freedoms is an exercise of power contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution.

3. Since the coup of May 22, 2014, the judiciary has not acted to protect the population from the exercise of arbitration by the junta. But it has become part or an instrument of the coup Either by supporting as law the announcement and order of the coup d’état OR the punishment of the anti-coup by the announcement or order of the coup At the same time it refused to go to investigate the use of power by the board. Including the exercise of power by government officials to comply with the announcement or order of the coup.

Furthermore, although the constitution was later adopted and a new government But the judiciary has not changed the role in any way. This can be seen in the meeting of students, students, people in the past. The court exercised the power to issue an arrest warrant at the request of the police without verifying and weighing the police charges.

Although the assembly was within the framework of the law and the constitution. And the court has the duty to protect It is not a mechanism to limit the rights and freedoms of people that the Constitution itself recognizes.
In democracy, the people are the owner of sovereign power. The courts, as part of an organization that exercises state power, must exercise power on behalf of the people. Not on behalf of another authority AND must be responsible for the owner of the power Therefore, the court must be examined and criticized. Questioning the role of the court in recent times is imperative for it to play a role that promotes democracy as it should.

From the above Therefore, the parliamentarians have petitioned the court as an organization that uses the judiciary as follows:

1. Ask the court to exercise judicial power to inspect and balance the power of government officials. Especially in the issuance of court orders and complaints against students, students and the public who exercise the freedom of peaceful and unarmed assembly as it should be. It is not part of the state mechanism to restrict the rights and freedoms of people.

2. Ask the court to recognize the exercise of power on behalf of the people. Not on behalf of another authority Serve the public AND protect the rights and freedoms of individuals based on the principle of the rule of law and democracy.

3. Request for reform of the judicial organization through the use of the judicial power. It must adhere to democratic people and values.