The Supreme Court of Appeals upholds prison sentences, without parole, for three former Bhumjaithai MPs who were charged with substituting tickets. It is an act of destroying the trust of the people. and mechanisms to protect independence It is a serious matter affecting governance. The panel of appeal judges of the Supreme Court read the verdict in the black number case, O.M.A.T. 6/2023, in the red number case filed by the Attorney General, Mr. Chalong Thoetweeraphong, Mr. Phumsit Kongmee, Mrs. Natthi Ratchakitprakarn, the first defendant. -3 In this case, the plaintiff sued that At the time of the incident, the three defendants held the positions of MP. On January 8-11, there was a meeting of the House of Representatives to consider the Budget Act for the fiscal year 2020. All three defendants signed up to attend the meeting, but the first defendant Was not at the meeting from 10 January 2020 at 7:30 p.m. to 11 January 2020 at 5:38 p.m. Defendant 2 was not at the meeting from 10 January 2020 at 7:30 p.m. to 11 January 2020 at 11.10 a.m. and the third defendant was not at the meeting on 11 January 2020 from 2:28 to 3:46 p.m. continuously. The three defendants were together with an unknown person. By giving it to others or allowing others to do it or not doing anything else. As a result, others used the three defendants' electronic cards to identify themselves and vote in the consideration of the fiscal year 2020 budget bill on behalf of the three defendants. The actions of the three defendants were performance of duty or omission to perform any duty in their position or duty. or use power in the position or duties of MPs who hold political positions and government officials illegally in order to cause damage to the government The process of using legislative power to enact Budget Expenditure Act for Fiscal Year 2020, MPs and citizens who act or refrain from performing their duties dishonestly Please punish accordingly. Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption 2018, Section 172. All three defendants den y this. The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions ruled that All three defendants are guilty according to The Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, 2018, Section 172, carries a prison sentence of one year for each person. The panel of judges passed a majority resolution that the investigation of the three defendants was of some benefit to consideration. There is a reprieve. The penalty was reduced to one-fourth for each person. According to Section 78 of the Criminal Code, each person would be imprisoned for 9 months. The circumstances of the case were dishonest. It is considered a serious matter. Therefore, there is no reason to wait for punishment for the 1st and 2nd defendants to be removed from their positions. MPs from 11 April 2022, which is a holiday from performing duties and to revoke the right to apply for election of the three defendants forever. Without the right to run for election or apply to be elected as an MP, Senator, local council member or lo cal administrator forever. and has no right to hold any political position according to the 2018 Anti-Corruption Act, Section 81, paragraphs one and two. All three defendants appealed to the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. During the consideration of the Appeal Committee All three defendants filed a request to waive all of their defenses on appeal and to plead guilty on appeal. and asked for a lighter punishment and to wait for the prison sentence. In the matter of requesting a light punishment, The majority of the appeal panel held that the offense was committed by a government official. Perform or refrain from performing any act in a position or duty. or use power in a position or duty illegally to cause damage to anyone Or perform or refrain from performing duties dishonestly according to the 2018 Anti-Corruption Act, Section 17, punishable by imprisonment from one year to ten years. or a fine from twenty thousand baht to two hundred thousand baht or both The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Pers ons Holding Political Positions sentenced each of the three defendants to one year in prison before reducing their sentences. It is a punishment at the minimum rate as specified by law. and also reduced the sentence by another quarter. It has been a great favor to all three defendants. There is no reason for the appeal panel to change the part of the request to suspend the punishment. The Appeals Committee found that the three defendants held the positions of MPs and had the authority to propose and consider drafts of various bills and the control of public administration. By posting questions Opening general debates, etc., where MPs are representatives of the Thai people and are not bound by the mandate. or any domination which is the performance of duties for the benefit of the public and must perform duties with honesty and integrity for the general benefit of the country without conflicts of interest According to the provisions of the Constitution, Sections 114,115, the powers and duties relate to the pro posal and consideration of drafts. Act or various draft acts. One member has one vote in voting according to the Constitution, Section 120, paragraph three. Voting cannot be done on behalf of another. According to the House of Representatives Meeting Regulations, B.E. 2019, Article 80, paragraph three, voting is required to be done by using an electronic ID card to identify yourself and vote. It is one way to prevent the performance of duties. Who is the MP under? and allows members of the House of Representatives to freely use their discretion while voting, therefore providing an electronic identification card to another person to use in voting which is the most important thing in performing the duties of an MP. In addition to destroying the trust of the people in that member of the House of Representatives, It also destroys the independence protection mechanism, causing the expression of will on behalf of the people to be controlled or distorted. By a person who hopes for other benefits It is not in accorda nce with the principles of democratic governance. The entire draft of the Budget Expenditure Act for the fiscal year 2020 is considered an important law that will allow the government to use state funds for government administration. If the draft Annual Budget Expenditure Act Not approved or delayed by the House of Representatives It will have an impact on the administration of government and the economy of the country. Although all three defendants claimed to have scheduled appointments before the scheduled meeting date, which was an absent meeting with leave from meetings according to regulations and causing the three defendants to be unable to vote is also a part of the offense. But the three defendants gave their electronic ballots to show themselves and cast their votes to another person to show themselves and vote on their behalf, which was an additional offense. All three defendants as MPsYou know that voting to enact laws is your duty on behalf of the people. which is more important than any other mis sion But the three defendants neglected their duties as representatives of the people and performed other duties. without adhering to the democratic regime Until causing a blemish on the parliamentary system It makes the unfavorable intentions of the three defendants even more evident. Although the Constitutional Court has ruled that The exercise of the right to vote on behalf of those not present at the meeting caused the draft Budget Act for the fiscal year 2020 to be enacted incorrectly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. and determine orders for the House of Representatives to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution in consideration. The Budget Expenditure Act for the fiscal year 2020 only considered the voting in the second agenda, the third agenda and the comments of the Committee, which the House of Representatives later voted to approve the draft. Even though the said Budget Act In addition to the damage caused by the delay There is still damage that is the cost o f considering the draft. The said new Budget Act Therefore causing great damage to the government sector. Circumstances of the offenses committed by the three defendants as representatives of the Thai people It is an act that is dishonest in performing one's duty and causes damage to the public interest. It is not a performance of duty and oath given. and have no respect for the law It is considered a serious matter affecting democratic governance. Not waiting for the prison sentence for the three defendants is to make the three defendants remember. It is to prevent others from taking the lead in committing such an offense again. Even though the three defendants later realized that they had committed crimes, they confessed and had never been imprisoned before. Having done good deeds to society as claimed by the three defendants, there is still not enough reason to wait for the imprisonment of the three defendants. The three defendants' appeals were not heard and the verdict was upheld. Source: Thai News Ag ency
Saturday, September 21, 2024