Of the three branches of government, the judiciary appears to have seen its role reach new heights following last year's political deadlock due to the inability of both the executive and legislature to function properly.

In Sarawut's opinion, it was fine for the judicial branch to exercise its authority in reviewing the dubious April 2, 2006, general election, which was later nullified. It was also fine for the judiciary to examine the character and integrity of three top election commissioners who refused to resign following the nullification of the election.

However, most members of the judiciary were worried to learn that the new charter would increase their collective political authority to the extent that the built-in checks and balances among all three branches of government would be endangered.

According to Section 68 of the first draft of the new charter, a "super-body" with 11 members would be set up to resolve national crises, comprising the heads of the executive branch (the prime minister); the legislative branch (the presidents of Parliament and the Senate); and, broadly speaking, the judiciary (the presidents of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitution Court), the opposition leader, and the heads of four other independent bodies.

In addition, the CDC proposed that the judicial branch should also be responsible for nominating candidates for the Senate. According to Section 107 of the draft charter, the president of the Constitution Court, a Supreme Court judge and a Supreme Administrative Court judge would be members of the committee tasked with the nomination process.

Given this stipulation, there would inevitably be a conflict of power, since the Senate is at the same time empowered to impeach members of the judiciary.

As far as the judiciary is concerned, it is unwise to further empower and politicise the branch since members of the judiciary would find it more and more difficult to stay aloof from politics.

Sarawut pointed out that the judiciary, until last September, was the only sovereign power that the military did not interfere with following a coup d'etat. But, for the first time in modern Thai history, the Council for National Security (CNS) dissolved the Constitution Court after ousting the Thaksin Shinawatra government on September 19, 2006. The CNS then issued a decree to set up the Constitution Tribunal, with the Supreme Court president as its head, to take up the electoral-fraud cases against the Thai Rak Thai, Democrat and several smaller parties. It was this tribunal that recently ruled to disband the Thai Rak Thai after finding it guilty.

Giving the judiciary a greater role in politics also increases the risk that more of its members could become corrupt. As the saying goes: "All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Sarawut said career judges in Thailand have long been held in high regard due to several factors, especially a strong code of ethics that clearly bars judges from involvement in political, business and other interests which has resulted in a long-running tradition of professional integrity. Given this history, most members of the judiciary do not want the institution to be dragged further into national politics.

And a boost to the judiciary's powers would create a significant imbalance in the triangle of governing branches.

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

 nop1122@yahoo.com