<p>The Criminal Court has dropped charges against anti-election protesters who barricaded a Bangkok District Office in early 2014 to prevent the general election from taking place. &nbsp;</p> <p>According to&nbsp;<a href="http://crime.tnews.co.th/content/151580/">T News</a>, at 10:00 am on Thursday, 9 July 2015, Bangkok’s Criminal Court dropped charges against People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) demonstrators who barred the Din Daeng District Office in northern Bangkok, to prevent the distribution of ballot papers polling stations on 2 February 2014.</p>

<p>In January 2015, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) began drafting the new Thai constitution with the promise of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.constitutionnet.org/news/thailand-next-constitution-will-be-totally-new">significant changes</a>&nbsp;to return true democracy to the country. Yet, as the drafting continues, there is growing concern that it will never deliver on its promise. Thailand’s clock will turn back at least two decades to the pre-1997 era, which was characterized by weak and chaotic government and by the unchecked power of unelected elites.&nbsp;</p>

<div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <div>The latest round of Thai political crisis, which ended with a coup d'etat, started with the controversial blanket amnesty bill, supported by the leading Pheu Thai party and also about to end with the manesty.</div> </div> </div> <div> </div>

<div>The Constitutional Court on Wednesday unanimously voted to remove Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and nine other cabinet members from the caretaker positions. The court found them guilty of abuse of power for transferring a senior government official without justification, adding another sequence in in what critics viewed as a “judicial coup” in Thai politics. </div>

<p>The latest attempt to remove Acting Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra over the transfer of former, and now re-instated, National Security Council Secretary-General Thawil Pliensri has run into some legal wrangling. &nbsp;</p> <p>The Supreme Administrative Court found that the transfer of Sec-Gen Thawil, shortly after the Yingluck administration took power, was illegal.&nbsp; Thawil argued that it was motivated by the patron-client system and “if the patronage system stays strong, how can civil officials be counted on to do their jobs correctly?” he argued.</p>

<div>The pro-government United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) or red-shirt protesters have rallied since Saturday on Aksa Road on the western outskirts of Bangkok, vowing to protect the government against an upcoming charter court ruling that could see caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra toppled within weeks.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The red shirts’ 3-day-long rally also aimed to counter the anti-government protesters who have been protesting for five months. </div>

<div> </div>

<p></p>

<p>With all respect to a former assistant dean of Harvard Law School, I believe your article (Stephen B Young, <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/381522/court-did-its-duty-over-amnesty-bill">“Court ‘did its duty’ over charter change”</a>) is based on the assumption that the root of the power of the Constitutional Court of Thailand is similar to that of the U.S. Supreme Court. If this assumption was correct, I would actually agree with you that the courts have the power to review the actions of the government since, as you pointed out, the courts need to "stand between the people and the selfish abuse of power by those in government".</p> <p></p>

<div>The Constitutional Court’s latest ruling was full of serious errors, pointed out the courageous “Nitirat” group of law academics after the Court judged last week that the attempt by the ruling Pheu Thai MPs to amend the coup-makers’ charter to change the senate from being partly elected and partly appointed to fully elected was unconstitutional. The group also urged the Parliament to defy the court's decision.</div> <div> </div>

<p>The Constitutional Court ruling that it is unconstitutional to amend the Constitution is proof of the sacrosanct nature of the document, so unutterably perfect that no change could possibly be an improvement.&nbsp; Perhaps it is time to go back and review how this flawless piece of work came about.</p> <p></p>

<p><span lang="en-US">The attempt by the righteous </span><span lang="en-US">academics of NIDA to expand the Constitutional Court’s mandate into economic policy (after its recent brave forays into politics and legislating) has apparently stumbled at a fairly petty hurdle.</span></p>