Rights gone wrong

By Achara Ashayagachat

Article 32(3) of the draft constitution was supposed to protect civil liberties. Instead, it expands police powers to search people without a warrant.

Human rights activists have expressed grave concerns over the contentious reversal of the draft constitutional clause. Instead of providing stronger laws to protect civil liberties, it seems to give even more extensive powers to police.

Angkhana Neelaphaijit, charter drafter and a member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), said she was disappointed that the final draft of the article was the opposite of what it was designed to be due to heavy lobbying. The article narrowly passed the assembly's vote, winning by 42 to 39, with two abstentions.

"I don't know who ordered the trade-off of the vote, but it's obvious bargaining and lobbying which should not have happened," said Ms Angkhana.

Article 32 (3) was supposed to protect the rights of the people, especially the poor who are often abused and mistreated by the authorities.

But now that chance has gone since police officers argued that a court warrant before a personal search was an obstacle to their work, she said.

"In fact, even without the warrant, officers can arrest a suspect in certain circumstances such as when they are caught red-handed," Ms Angkhana said.

She referred to the case of a Chulalongkorn University student who was framed by police, who planted amphetamines on him, and was taken into custody for nearly a week and refused access to his family.

The student was almost expelled from the university, she said.

Phairoj Pholphet, secretary general of the Union for Civil Liberties, said he was stunned that the draft constitution turned out to be worse than the 1997 version, which stipulated the limits of police power by balancing it with judicial powers.

The result of Tuesday's vote has aroused public scepticism that the draft charter will endorse stronger powers for uniformed officers at the expense of promoting civil rights.

"Indeed, it reflects a more powerful force of the technocrats in the aristocracy," said Mr Phairoj.

He said there had been a victory for the people, however, in that capital punishment had been omitted from the supreme law.However, Dejudom Krairit, president of the Lawyers Council of Thailand, said that it was not a real victory as the death penalty was still recognised in the criminal code.

"It is up to society whether it still regards the death penalty as a deserved revenge mechanism for culprits. Some states in the US still have capital punishment while Scandinavian countries and Israel do not," said Mr Dejudom.

He agreed with Mr Phairoj that the authorisation of searches without a warrant was against the good standards set by the 1997 charter.

"It's a disappointment and a retreat from the international norms of civil rights and liberties. Even with the good charter, we still had such cases as [Muslim lawyer] Somchai Neelaphaijit's abduction. The individual rights will be tested and challenged even further with police having full power," he said.

Sarawut Benjakul, spokesman for the Office of the Judiciary, yesterday opposed the CDA's decision to amend the draft charter, allowing authorities to arrest and conduct searches without securing prior court warrants.

He said it was a violation of people's rights and freedoms.

It is the court's duty to find a balance between the use of state power and adequate protection of the public, he said.