AUDITOR GENERAL: Court ‘split’ on Jaruvan issue
Published on September 05, 2005 - Jumpol says Constitution Court should put out statement on her status. The Constitution Court appeared divided yesterday over comments that it would issue a statement on Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka’s status as auditor-general.
While Phan Jantaraparn, who chairs Constitution Court meetings, said the court would not issue such a statement, a judge, Jumpol na Songkhla, said the court should do so and, if needed, he would make the statement himself.
Jumpol said on Friday the court would issue a statement this week to clear up any suspicion about Jaruvan’s status, saying that she had technically never been nominated as auditor-general.
But Phan said yesterday the court had never taken up the issue for consideration and had no plan to issue such a statement.
“Jumpol talked on his own without the court’s knowledge,” Phan said. He said the court had already ruled on the issue so it had finished its role in the case.
However, Phan said the court was drafting a letter to answer questions put to it by the Campaign for Popular Democracy.
Jumpol said yesterday that if the Constitution Court did not issue a statement, he would go ahead and explain the matter himself.
The Constitution Court ruled in July last year that the process leading to Jaruvan’s appointment was unlawful, but it stopped short of saying whether Jaruvan should be removed from the job.
“The Jaruvan issue will be discussed during a court meeting on Tuesday,” Jumpol said. “I am not the only one who wants the court to issue a statement, as we see that the Constitution Court has been besieged.
“The Constitution Court does not depend on the chairman alone. If he refuses to issue a statement, then I’ll do it myself.”
Asked whether it was inappropriate for the court to make a move now that the nomination of a new auditor-general was awaiting royal approval, Jumpol replied: “I am not challenging the royal power. I think the minority side, who refused to accept the majority’s decision, were the ones who made the challenge.”
Jumpol was among the majority of Constitution Court judges who ruled to acquit Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in an assets concealment case.
Asked whether he would be seen as coming out to help Thaksin once again, since the government is known to dislike Jaruvan, Jumpol replied: “In a democratic rule, we need to respect the voices of the majority. I considered that since the people had elected Thaksin, the people had already ruled that Thaksin was not guilty, so I had to respect the people’s voice.”
A source said that Jira Boonpojanasunthorn was another Constitution Court judge who wanted the court to issue a statement on Jaruvan’s status.
The source said Jumpol and Jira not only wanted the court to clarify its ruling, but also to provide background on why it ruled against Jaruvan.
The source said the majority of Constitution Court judges felt that because Jaruvan had been a member of the State Audit Commission, which drafted the directive on screening and nomination of the auditor-general, she should have been familiar with the nomination rules.
The rules require a nominee for the auditor-general post to win at least five votes from the eight commissioners, but Jaruvan had received only three votes, so the majority had ruled against her, the source said.
Meanwhile, Kanin Bunsuwan, who helped draft the Constitution, said he disagreed with the Constitution Court issuing a statement. He said that since the court had already made a ruling, it should no longer play any part in the Jaruvan saga.
Kanin explained that the Constitution Court’s ruling was binding on all agencies, including the court itself, and since the ruling did not make it clear as to whether and when Jaruvan had to leave her office, the court was now not in a position to clarify the ruling.
Kanin warned that Jumpol’s statement that Jaruvan had never been selected to the post in the first place could be seen as violating the royal power.
He said the auditor-general was appointed by His Majesty the King, so the Constitution Court could only rule that a holder of that office had to leave the post when he or she was found to be violating the law. There was no provision under which a ruling by the court could have a retroactive effect to the day the position holder was appointed.
Suphon Thanukrit,
Somroutai Sapsomboon
The Nation
|