February 15, 2013 · 23:33

Return of the Writs (Myanmar/Burma)

The New Light of Myanmar has a brief announcement about a seminar focused on constitutional writs in Myanmar. It’s great to see more attention paid to the writs.* As I’ve said before, one of the biggest questions in Myanmar constitutional law is how they will be enforced. According to the constitution, citizens must petition the Supreme Court to enforce the writs. However, it also seems that the Constitutional Tribunal has jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of those writs. What happens if the two disagree? Just one of the many questions about the constitution.

* (thanks to Eugene Quah for pointing out the article to me)

Writs, vital for rule of law, justice and human rights: Union Attorney-General

Nay Pyi Taw, 14 Feb- Writs are necessary for the rule of law, justice and human rights, said Union Attorney-General Dr Tun Shin as he opened the academic seminar on writs embodied in the constitution of Myanmar at Amara Hotel here this morning.

He said the seminar would raise public awareness about the writs.

The seminar was jointly organized by the Office of the Union Attorney-General and International Court of Justice.

Former ICJ Chairman Mr John Dowd AO QC said ICJ recognized the historic reforms of the country and guaranteed aids for the rule of law and wider reforms.

The seminar is held through 15 February.

Comments Off on Return of the Writs (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Burma, Myanmar, rule of law, Supreme Court, writs

February 8, 2013 · 14:46

Bangalore to Burma (Myanmar/Burma)

According to The New Light of Myanmar (see article below), Myanmar Chief Justice Tun Tun Oo gave a speech before a group of judges and called on them to resist corruption. Notably, the chief justice endorsed the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct, a set of judicial best practices adopted by the United Nations in 2002. 
This isn’t the first time Supreme Court justices have talked about the Bangalore Principles. However, in the context of the draft contempt of court bill the Supreme Court recently submitted to the Hluttaw, the chief justice’s speech is interesting and potentially well timed. It could allow the court to say that it will do its part in cleaning up its own house, and in return it will ask citizens to honor its integrity. However, Myanmar has not yet adopted the Bangalore Principles formally, which the court might do in a code of judicial ethics.

Chief Justice of the Union calls for adherence to Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

Nay Pyi Taw, 7 Feb- Chief Justice of the Union U Tun Tun Oo called for making rational decision based on virtue, probity and expertise in jurisdiction at the fourth coordination meeting of the Supreme Court of the Union with region/state high courts and district courts at the meeting hall of the Supreme Court here yesterday morning. He called for logical consistency in making judgement of a case, urging them to cultivate moral courage to resist outside influences.

He demanded emergence of reliable jurisdiction in line with principles embodied in Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

Present at the meeting were judges of the supremecourt, chief judges of region/state high courts, region/state judicial officers and district court judges.

The meeting concludes tomorrow.-MNA

Comments Off on Bangalore to Burma (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Bangalore Principles, Burma, Myanmar, Supreme Court

February 7, 2013 · 12:06

JC vs. SC redux (Indonesia)

A few weeks ago, I’d mentioned that Palembang District Court Judge Daming Sanusi was criticized for having made an impolitic joke about rape during his “fit and proper test” before the DPR. Daming has since withdrawn his candidacy but the Judicial Commission has announced its desire for the Supreme Court to try him for ethics violations. According to The Jakarta Post, the Supreme Court has refused, stating that Daming has already issued a “sincere apology.”

The Commission is continuing its campaign, but, because of the Constitutional Court decision in 2006, it lacks the power to enforce ethics standards and prosecute judges itself. There are no constitutional issues at stake in the current dispute between the JC and SC thus far, but the dispute is important as a sign of whether and how Indonesia can deal with wayward judges. Given the public outrage over the incident, it’s possible the JC can mobilize public opinion on its behalf.

Comments Off on JC vs. SC redux (Indonesia)

Filed under ethics, indonesia, judicial commission, judicial reform

February 5, 2013 · 19:06

Contempt of Court amendments rejected (Myanmar/Burma)

Mizzima provided a brief update on the Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial Committee’s complaints process. According to Chairman Thura Aung Ko, the committee has been overwhelmed with over 3,000 letters of complaint. The committee has looked into 1,000 letters thus far and forwarded others to other parliamentary committees.

In other news, the Pyithu Hluttaw has rejected amendments to the draft contempt of court bill. The bill, in its current form, would impose six months in jail, a fine of up to 100,000 kyats, or both for contempt of court. Independent MP Thein Nyunt criticized the draft as too harsh. The draft would provide too much protection for judges and risk punishing relatively innocuous comments about judges. It might also dampen efforts to tackle judicial corruption if newspapers and citizens cannot talk freely about judicial corruption.
Of course, contempt of court is a serious offense and risks obstructing justice. From a comparative perspective, many common law countries impose strict sentences and criminal fines for contempt (Canada imposes up to two years imprisonment). However, the definition of contempt must be carefully constructed in order to avoid stifling legitimate discussion of courts. In the U.S., contempt is defined as behavior that disrupts court proceedings or enforcement of court orders. Commentary on judges’ decisions is not contempt. 
Myanmar’s draft contempt of court bill is not yet available. However, the law was drafted by the Supreme Court, suggesting it will be relatively protective of judges. Hopefully, before the draft is passed, the Hluttaw debates the exact scope of contempt and not just the sanctions.

Comments Off on Contempt of Court amendments rejected (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Burma, contempt, Myanmar

February 1, 2013 · 06:32

Book Review: What is the Philippine equivalent of Brown v. Board? (Philippines)

Marites Vitug is one of the more prominent critics of corruption and nepotism in the Philippine Supreme Court. However, in this book, she focuses on landmark rights cases from the Supreme Court. These are essentially the Philippine equivalents of Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, etc. Admittedly, not all of these cases result in victories for rights activists, but they are crucial to understanding Philippine jurisprudence. Vitug and Yabes provide a short overview of the case, but they really focus on the individuals and personalities involved. This is great for foreigners who can access the official judicial opinions easily enough on the Supreme Court’s website but might not appreciate the context surrounding the case. It’s particularly revealing to see some of the behind-the-scenes influence in some cases – the sort of personal touches that never make it into the written opinion. For example, in one of the mining cases, a former Supreme Court justice was a lawyer for one of the parties! In another case, Vitug and Yabes recount the scathing skepticism of the justices during oral argument. As with Vitug’s Shadow of Doubt, this book is essentially reading for anybody interested in the modern Philippine judicial system.

Comments Off on Book Review: What is the Philippine equivalent of Brown v. Board? (Philippines)

Filed under book review, Marites Vitug, Philippines