President bows to parliament on controversial new law

By HANNA HINDSTROM
Published: 22 January 2013
thein-sein-12
Burma's parliament is overwhelmingly dominated by the pro-junta USDP (Reuters)

President Thein Sein on Tuesday agreed to amend Burma’s constitutional tribunal law after an escalating standoff with the country’s parliament over the legality of the proposed changes, according to state media.

The changes will give parliament greater influence over the tribunal, but have been criticised for violating Burma’s 2008 constitution and the independence of the judiciary. Thein Sein has previously suggested that parliamentarians should first seek to amend certain sections of the constitution, which address the role of the tribunal, but was overruled by the legislature last week.

Legal analysts say the changes constitute a cynical attempt by parliament, which is dominated by former military cronies, to exert pressure on the tribunal without having to alter Burma’s controversial 2008 legislation.

“The majority members of the Hluttaw [parliament] come from the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP),” Aung Htoo from the Burma Lawyers’ Council told DVB, referring to the ruling military-backed party. “They would never dare to open the process for the amendment of the constitution. It would lead to a way for the people, and other members of the Hluttaw to amend other parts of the constitution.”

The new law hands parliament the authority to challenge the tribunal’s decisions, and greater input over the appointment of its chairman, who would in turn be required to report back to them and the president on his work, raising questions over his independence.

In the New Light of Myanmar today, Thein Sein reluctantly accepted the amendments, but insisted they would “hamper the jurisdiction of the highest constitutional court”. He added that it would now be up to the tribunal to rule on the constitutionality of the parliament’s decision.

The news follows months of disagreements over the role of Burma’s constitutional tribunal, which culminated in the resignation of all nine judges in September last year after parliament threatened to impeach them. The row kicked off in March when the court issued an order limiting the power of parliamentary committees and commissions – a decision which the new law overturns.

But Aung Htoo insists that parliament cannot overrule the tribunal’s previous decisions, even if they are “controversial and wrong”, without making a mockery of the rule of law.

“They know that their amended law is also against the 2008 constitution, but they ignored it, and why? Because they would like to control the judiciary, including the constitutional tribunal, so that they can strengthen their power and facilitate the rule of military dictatorship in Burma.”

Last week, parliament passed an unprecedented motion to investigate a blogger, who criticised the legislature for acting “above the law” in their standoff with the president. The blogger — dismissed by some as a government lackey — could face criminal defamation charges if identified.

Aung Thu Nyein from the Vahu Development Institute told DVB that the conflict with the president, which has been described as a jostle for power within the USDP, is likely to continue, despite the parliament “flexing its muscle” and securing the “upper hand”.

Burma’s constitution was drafted by the former junta and guarantees the military a firm hand in public affairs, including 25% of seats in parliament. Activists say the current dispute should not be used to distract from the challenge of changing its more controversial provisions.

“There are many complications and inconsistencies in the constitution,” said Ko Ni, a central court lawyer from Rangoon, who is leading a drive to change the legislation. “Most of our laws are in conflict with the constitution. It is one of its many problems.”

Tags: , , , ,

Author:              Category: News, Politics

Comments


  1. Myanmar/Burmese says:

    Three branches (Governement, Parlement and Judiciary)should be independant. There is good and bad decision of this outcome. Bad thing is current parlement which is dominated by USDP will influence the judiciary branch’s decision, but good news is when the new election comes and if there is free and fair election (and when democratic parties becomes majority), parlement have more power to put the judiciary system with independant minded professional judges.

  2. Derek Tonkin says:

    The President has made it clear that he intends to ask the new Constitutional Tribunal, when appointed, to rule on the constitutionality of the amended law.

    At this stage he has no choice under the Constitution but to accept the decision of Parliament. One amendment though was only passed by 332 votes to 236, with 28 abstentions. This suggests that Parliament is far from united on the issues involved.

    If the new Constitutional Tribunal rules that the amendments are contrary to the Constitution, will Parliament again seek to impeach the members of the Tribunal? We shall see. I make this Round 2 of what could be an indefinite contest.





Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

 characters available
 

Other News, Politics Stories

DVB TV

Migrants return from Malaysia

MOST READ STORIES

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up

Marquee Content Powered By Know How Media