06BANGKOK3673 THAI POLITICAL UPDATE JUNE 20: DUELING LAWSUITS
“68692″,”6/20/2006 11:36″,”06BANGKOK3673″,
“Embassy Bangkok”,”CONFIDENTIAL”,”",”VZCZCXRO4678
OO RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHBK #3673/01 1711136
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 201136Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9598
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHFJSCC/COMMARFORPAC”,”C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 003673
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/19/2016
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, TH
SUBJECT: THAI POLITICAL UPDATE JUNE 20: DUELING LAWSUITS
Classified By: Political Counselor Susan M. Sutton, reason 1.4 (b) (d)
1. (C) SUMMARY: The Attorney General returned the Thai Rak
Thai dissolution case to the Election Commission on June 16,
saying the EC was legally required to identify what section
of law TRT was charged under, and what the legal penalty
should be. Statements from the Atty-General office indicate
that they are determined to avoid any procedural flaws in the
case that could make the eventual Court decision vulnerable
to appeal. The EC has until June 27 to return the case to
the Atty-General with a recommendation. The Democrats have
also testified before the EC on the TRT case against them for
trying to \”overthrow democracy.\” The EC is defending itself
against charges of malfeasance and abuse of power, and will
have its first court date on July 3. Some observers suggest
that the threat of legal penalties against just about
everyone may eventually lead to compromises that will allow
the political system to go back to work as usual. However,
we see no advocates for compromise yet. End summary.
TRT DISSOLUTION CASE
——————–
2. (C) The Attorney-General announced on June 16 that it
would send the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) dissolution case back to
the Election Commission. The EC forwarded the case to the
Attorney-General without specifying what sections of law TRT
had violated, and without specifying whether the party should
be disbanded as a result of its actions. The EC was
requested to respond by June 27. The Attorney-General
reportedly is concerned that, if it sent the case forward to
the Constitutional Court without the EC recommendation, it
would weaken the case and leave any Court decision vulnerable
to appeal. The EC has not yet stated whether it would meet
the June 27 deadline.
3. (C) We spoke today to Dej-Udom Krairit, the president of
the Thai Lawyers\’ Council about some of the legal questions
surrounding this case. He fully supported the
Attorney-General\’s decision, saying that the law clearly
required the EC to make a recommendation. If the EC makes a
recommendation, and the Attorney General reaches a different
conclusion, the two would form a joint committee to resolve
their different views. Ordinarily, he would expect this to
take a month to six weeks, but it might be expedited in this
case. Provided they eventually reached agreement that the
case was serious enough to require court review, the
Atty-General would forward it to the Constitutional Court.
It would depend on the Court\’s schedule how quickly they
would hear the case. He expected that the Court would
expedite this case, in line with the King\’s instructions.
4. (C) The lawyer also commented on some other aspects of
the case. TRT has complained that the EC subcommission which
prepared the damning — and subsequently leaked — report was
biased, because it never called any TRT witness to get the
party\’s defense. Dej-Udom said that this is normal practice
for such a subcommission. Their job is to examine the case
and see if there is cause for further investigation. TRT
gets its chance to defend itself when the case goes to court,
not in this initial investigation. Dej-Udom also said that
he had some knowledge of the TRT dissolution case, and his
impression was that it was very solid.
DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTION CASE
————————-
5. (C) The EC heard testimony late last week from senior
Democrats, defending their party against the charge that they
paid the microparties to frame TRT, and that their election
boycott and call for an \”Article 7\” prime minister
constituted attempts to \”overthrow democracy.\” The EC has
not given any indication when it would conclude this
investigation. Since the EC testimony last week, there seems
to be more concern that the case could hurt the Democrats,
politically at least, if not legally.
EC MALFEASANCE CASE
——————-
6. (C) On June 15, the Constitutional Court also granted
bail to the three remaining EC Commissioners, in connection
with a lawsuit brought by the Democrat Party. They are
charged with malfeasance and abuse of authority for allowing
\”constituency-hopping\” by failed candidates in the later
rounds of the April elections, and with failing to
investigate the charges of TRT election fraud in the hiring
of the microparties. The court set the date for the first
hearing on July 3.
BANGKOK 00003673 002 OF 002
COMMENT
——-
7. (C) Several interlocutors have raised the possibility of
some kind of compromise solution to the political crisis.
Dej-Udom, asked whether the fate of Thaksin, TRT, etc. would
be decided in the courts or by other means pointed out the
\”in our Thai history, we tend to decide things by
compromise.\” Although the case against the Democrat party
appears quite weak compared to the case against TRT, it may
be a piece of the puzzle that eventually leads to a
compromise solution, sparing both parties punishment in
exchange for some other concessions that would get the
political process back on track. However, no one yet appears
to be in a compromising mood. End comment.
ARVIZU
“
