User:Clumsily/Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand

The Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand (ศาลฎีกา; ; ) is Thailand's court of justice of last resort with the territorial jurisdiction throughout the country and the subject-matter jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the appeals against the judgments or orders of the inferior courts of justice as well as the cases directly subject to its comptency.

The Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice consists of one President and not more than six Vice-Presidents, all are appointed by the King of Thailand.

The Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice is located in front of Sanam Luang. In recent political history of the country, it was one of the bombing targets. On February 14, 2010, when the Supreme Court of Justice was scheduled to pronounce its judgment in Thaksin Shinawatra's property confiscation case, three-pound C-4 was found laid close by its Seat but the disposal was promptly operated, leaving no one and nothing injuried.

Judicial crisis in Siam


In former times in Siam (present Thailand), every government ministry had its own courts to exercise jurisdiction over the disputes as to its responsible service, the officers in the executive branch were authorised to exercise judicial power also for the reason that there was no separation of powers, while the absolute monarchs of Siam enjoyed the prerogative to him or herself adjudicate the appeals lodged by the people against the judgments of those courts. As the disputes increased time by time, the traditional judicial system of the country became in disorder, but it was left unimproved since its establishment in the Ayutthaya period until the initial Rattanakosin period, aging more than three hundred consecutive years.

When the reform-minded crown prince Chulalongkorn was enthroned as the fifth monarch of the House of Chakri which ruled Siam at that time, the new king was of an opinion that the traditional judicial system has retarded the national development and was needed to be reformed without delay, for the reason that:


 * The traditional judicial system was unsuitable to the modern ideology. It have gained public negative criticism for so much long time, but it was left unadjusted for so long also.
 * Many courts were confronting with the conflict of jurisdiction as, even subsidiary to different government ministries, they were authorised to try and adjudicate similar subject-matters, leaving a great amount of disputes overdue and complex.
 * The complexity in the judicial system have allowed some powerful executive authorities to intervene in exercising the judicial power. The arrests have been conducted unfairly and the trials have been carried out comatosely. The efficaciousness of the judges were reduced gradually as their independence have been interloped chronically.
 * The court procedure in force at the time being was pursuant to the principle of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The criminal cases have been resulted in immoderate infliction of punishment. The defendants have been the objects of trial, not the subjects of the rights to prove their innocence.
 * Not only having been inferered, the judicial officers also enjoyed corruptions rampantly. In his remark, Chulalongkorn once stated: "...When the cases are brought before them, the judges will merely look into whatever presented in the documents, they did not looked into the cases by their eyes. This allows the inquiring officers and the parties to employ fraudulent trickery arbitrarily..." This dishonesty was also insisted by Phraya Chakkrapani Si Sin Wisut (La-o Krairoek), who later became the fourth President of the modern Supreme Court of Justice. He remarked:

"'...When a public officer holding the office of the Director-General of a department consider that his salary could not cover his household expenses or not serve the desire of his wives and children, he will complain to his superior. If the superior deems that his subordinate is needy for real, the superior will entrust him to try and adjudicate one or two civil or criminal cases at his own residence. The trial at the officer's residence would nicely be favourable to the offcer, because it requires the parties to the case to stay at the officer's residence for a long period which sometimes take months or years until the trial is over. During which, the plaintiff, prosecutor, defendant or witness will try to please the officer responsible for his or her case in every way...Then, the officer would somehow have his inadequacy alleviated...'"

The Presidency
The Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice (คณะประธานศาลฎีกา; ) consists of:
 * One President of the Supreme Court of Justice (ประธานศาลฎีกา; ) selected by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice and nominated to the King to be appointed.
 * Not more than six Vice-Presidents of the Supreme Court of Justice (รองประธานศาลฎีกา; )

Judges
All judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (ผู้พิพากษาศาลฎีกา; ) are appointed by the King from the judges of the courts of justice of second instance or from those transferred from the administrative courts, by and with the advice and consent of the CJJC.

Special devisions
Presently, the Supreme Court of Justice have eleven special divisions (แผนก; ) for the purpose of dealing with the cases requiring specialised profiency. Ten of them are established by the laws, and the other, by the Supreme Court of Justice itself. The eleven are:

Location and construction
The Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice is located in front of Sanam Luang, amongst Tha Phrachan Campus of Thammasat University, the Tha Phra Palace which houses Silpakorn University, the Temple of the Emerald Buddha, the Grand Palace, the Bangkok National Museum and the Office of the Council of State of Thailand, along the Chao Phraya River.

The Seat comprises of three complexes arranged in V-position. All of them were designed by Phra Sarot Rattana Nimman (Sarot Sukyang), a government architect of the Fine Arts Department.

Tthe first complex was constructed in 1939 to be the office of the Ministry of Justice. The construction was completed in the next two years and the opening ceremony was held on June 24, 1941, the date on which Khana Ratsadon staged the Siamese Revolution overthrowing the absolute monarchy and forming the constitutional monarchy under the parliamentary democracy in the ninth preceding year.

The second complex was completely built in 1941 and was inaugurated on June 24, 1943.



The third comple was not constructed according to the original design for the reason that the design was lost in the Second World War. The new design was drawn up in 1959 by the command of Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsongkram, the Prime Minister at that time and a member of Khana Ratsadon. As his Government just has successfully revoked all treaties, including the Bowring Treaty, the country adopted in the initial Rattanakosin period granting extraterritoriality to the westerners, Pibulsongkram insisted that the theme of the complex must be "Modern Architecture." In his report, Pibulsongkram said:

"'...Following the Revolution, our judicial affairs have been supported and promoted to this high standard time by time...In My Government's era, the nation will be improved, bettered and nurtured more and more. For the reason that Thailand has just obtained the complete judicial independence, I, Prime Minister, deems that it is appropriate to establish the offices of the Ministry of Justice and of the Supreme Court of Justice to be the national honour and prestige and be the pillar of justice.'"

The construction was completed and the opening ceremony was organised in 1963.

President of the National Assembly Chao Phraya Si Thammathibet (Chit Na Songkhla) who presided over the ceremony addressed that:

"'...Now, Siam has gained her judicial independence completely. It is expedient to have the Seat of the Court of Justice which is stately as in all other civilised nations. This Seat would from the remembrance of the return of our judicial independence...'"

Although the "Modern Architecture" Seat was deemed and intended by Khana Ratsadon to be a symbol of the democracy it has introduced to the country, the royalists viewed it is "repulsive.

Proposal to demolish and rebuild the Seat
The proposal to have the Seat knocked down was began since 1986. In 1992, the administrative board of the Supreme Court of Justice made a proposal of destroying the Seat and rebuilding it under the theme of "Modern Thai Style." The proposed design was the building complexes with the roofs as the Grand Palace. This was endorsed by the Government and the budget of approximately 2,300 million baht was then approved. Although, the project was forced to be suspended by the economic crisis.

In 2006, the project has been revivified. The design was slightly improved to be the complexes in complete traditional palace style, called "Temple and Palace Style". The new Seat would be two-time huger than the current one. The Supreme Court of Justice said this would signify "Thainess." The budget of 3,700 million baht binding Budgeting Years 2007-2013 was endorsed by the Council for Democratic Reform, a military junta which took control of the country at that time. The religious ceremony commencing the project was held on September 23, 2007.

Public protests
The revival of the project raised much concerns amongst the public and underwent heavy protests by non-governmental organisations and public sectors to the extent that the demonstrations have taken place, several academic forums and discussions have been held and the lawsuits have been entered to haul the project.

The Fine Arts and Environment Conservation Society of Thailand said: "...The Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice is one of the ancient complexes existing in this day and worth besing preserved. The Fine Arts Department are now preparing to register it as a national historic site...but the Supreme Court of Justice has refused to collaborate..."

In a public forum called the "24th ICOMOS Thailand Get-Together on the Historical Value of the Supreme Court" on April 18, 2009, at Damrongrajanupap Conference Hall, Bangkok National Museum, the International Council on Monuments and Sites of Thailand (ICOMOS Thailand), said:

"'...[The ICOMOS Thailand] would like to respectfully ask Your Excellency to hold off the demolition of the Supreme Court building to allow more time to gather public opinions...[and] to study possible alternative solutions to properly improve and rehabilitate this historic judicial building of the Rattanakosin Era...in order to make possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving the building’s historical, architectural, and cultural values.'"

At the same time, the Thai NGO launched a campaign against the project. It was quoted as remarking:

"'...The symbol of justice does not express itself in a form of judgment only, but also in arts which echo the firmness and principles of justice...The history of the courts of justice vest in the nation, the people and the community. Please do not destruct the Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice without asking the people...'"

Suspension
On July 1, 2010, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva called for the suspension of the project until there is a conclusion from the public. While the Fine Arts Department Director-General Grienggrai Sampatchalit insisted that "...The Department is closely keeping an eye on the Court's operation, because any act performed as to a historic site would constitue an offence under the Historic Site Act..."

Seal


The Seal of the Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand is the Coat of Arms of Thailand pursuant to Clause 2 of the Act Adopting the National Emblem, BE 2432 (1889), which prescribed:

"'All departments and ministries wishing to be represented by the National Emblem in performing their public service or for the purpose of signifying their agencies as in the miliatary or civil service shall draw up a design of the National Emble wished for and submit it to the Ministry of Palace Affairs for royal assent...Upon the royal assent, they shall be empowered to adopt such National Emblem as their emblem.'"

The Supreme Court of Justice has been granted such royal assent by Ananda Mahidol, according to the "Royal Proclamation Re: Assenting the Supreme Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal to Adopt the National Emblem as their Seals, dated August 2, 1937," stating:

"'...The royal assent is granted to the Ministry of Justice to adopt the national emblem as the vermilion seal of the Supreme Court of Justice...fixed in a 52-milimetre-diameter sphere with the words 'Supreme Court of Justice' on the ribbon below...'"

The Seal is also adopted by all courts of justice of Thailand, and is affixed onto every judicial judgment, order or document of them.

Legislative materials

 * Act on Administrative Procedure of Courts of Justice Judicial Officers, BE 2543 (2000). (2009, 29 May). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Act on Establishment of Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts and Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Procedure, BE 2539 (1996). (2010, 29 March). Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Act on Establishment of Labour Courts and Labour Case Procedure, BE 2522 (1979). (2010, 3 March). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Act on Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Case Procedure, BE 2534 (1991). (2009, 11 March). Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Act on Establishment of Tax Courts and Tax Case Procedure, BE 2528 (1985).(2010, 5 May). Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Act Promulgating the Law on Organisation of the Courts of Justice, BE 2543 (2000). (2010, 6 May). [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * OKNation. (2009, 23 November). Public Forum against Supreme Court Seat Demolition : Stopping Cultural Corruption! [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Prachathai.
 * (2008, 23 May). Some Reasons Why the Supreme Court of Justice Must Not Be Destructed. [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * (2008, 16 October). The Judge Can Do No Wrong. [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * TCDcconnect. (2008, 26 June). Design & Representation of Power : 'Demolishing and Rebuliding,' the 2009 Supreme Court Seat is for whom? (Part 1) [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * ThaiNGO. (2007, October 8). Stop Destroying the Court! [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Thansettakij. (2010, 1 July). Abhisit Breaking the Supreme Court Seat Destruction. [Online]. Available: . (Accessed: 4 November 2010).

Others

 * Judicial crisis in King Chulalongkorn's reign prior to its reform. (2006). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Powers and duties of the Supreme Court of Justice. [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Supreme Court of Justice's competency. (2006). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
 * Trivia as to the Seal of the Supreme Court of Justice. (2008, 16 January). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).

ศาลฎีกา