In a move human rights activists hailed as a step backward, the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) voted Tuesday

in favour of a constitution clause that allowed authorities to arrest, detain and conduct personal search without court warrant.

Charter drafters voted 42 to 39 with two abstentions to delete the requirement of court warrant, earlier stipulated in the draft

of Article 32 of the constitution, a reversal rights advocate feared will expand police power at the expense of civil rights.

Drafter Praphan Naikovit said such a deletion will make civil liberties' protection under the draft constituion weaker than the 1997 version,

and giving more power to authorities.

"Being a public prosecutor for over 30 years, I fully understand the mental stress law officers face," said Prapan, "yet, they too need to

rightly understand that the court warrant is also meant to protect and justify their works."

Article 32 was earlier drafted to find the balance between the use of state power and adequate protection of civil liberties, limiting restrictions

of civil rights to only those authorised by laws, and secured by court warrant.

Mr Komsan Pothikong who reserved to amend this article, said court warrant before search was an obstacle to police work. Their lives might

be put in danger in case of a bomb threat that needs prompt search but that police must first secure a warrant, he said.

Arguing along similar line, CDA member Pol Lt Gen Thammanit Pitaneelabutr said the requirement of court warrant negotiates effective

crime prevention. Police chasing after a theft cannot afford to get the warrant before making arrest, he said.

Drafter Charan Pakdithanakul, meanwhile, said the requirement of court warrant is aimed to prevent arbitrarily personal search by officers.

The draft charter committee also aware of any effect this clause might have on law enforcement officials, he said.

Indeed, authorities are allowed under the Criminal Act to conduct body-search without court warrant in any misconduct caught red-handed

provided the search is not done overtly. The debate on this article took two hours, before CDA deputy chair Decho Sawananont resolved for a vote.

CDA members who opposed the requirement of court warrant included prosecutors, lawyers, and police while judiciary members supported

earlier draft of Article 32.

Pisit: state must be authorised to expropriate   

In another debate on Article 42 on expropriation, Pisit Leatham a member of the Charter Drafting Committee insisted state must be given with

expropriation authority for the exploitation of natural resources to protect state interests.

CDA member Jirmsak Pinthong disagreed. He feared such authorisation will negatively affect the natural resources and the community while

the real benefits are foreign investors as in the case of the Potash mine in Udon Thani province.

Translated by Mukdawan Sakboon