The Philippine Senate voted 20-3 to convict Corona. Turns out the vote wasn’t even particularly close. Moreover, 2 out of the 3 senators who voted to acquit were either Marcos or Arroyo relatives. Here’s an article summarizing the vote. I’ll write more once the fallout is clear.
And if you were confused about the complex accusations against Corona, here is an article summarizing the legal case.
Comments Off on He’s out!
Filed under Corona, impeachment, Philippines
Every once in a while I see articles in The New Light of Myanmar about Myanmar judges meeting with Chinese judges. The visits are obviously public and official, as they are reported in the news. It’d be interested to see whether these visits are part of a a broader engagement. China has undertaken several judicial reform projects, but interestingly still managed to keep the judiciary both formally and informally under the Communist Party. On the one hand, given the pace of political reforms in Myanmar today, it’s hard to believe the government views China’s judiciary as a model. On the other hand, China’s successes in professionalizing judges might hold powerful lessons for Myanmar.
The most recent of these articles is below:
YANGON, 21 May- At the invitation of U Win Swe, Chief Justice of Yangon Region High Court, a delegation led by Mr Wang Shuliang, Vice-President of the Yunnan Provincial Supreme People’s Court currently in Myanmar paid a call on the Chief Justice of Yangon Region High Court and justices at region chief justice hall this morning.
They discussed judicial affairs and also studied criminal cases.-MNA
Comments Off on More Chinese linkages with Myanmar’s courts
Filed under Burma, China, judicial reform, Myanmar
A few weeks ago, the Myanmar Constitutional Tribunal issued its third ruling, namely that Hluttaw committees are not union-level organizations. At the time, I was puzzled over the import of the decision. Fortunately, Soe Than Lynn at The Myanmar Times has written a story about the reaction to the decision in the Hluttaw. According to the article:
Lawmakers have interpreted the ruling – and the wrangling that preceded it – as an attempt to reduce parliamentary oversight of government activities.
He also discusses some of the background to the litigation. Some MPs even suggested a constitutional amendment to enshrine the status of committees as union-level organizations.
Unfortunately, the article still doesn’t really explain why the ruling would reduce the Hluttaw’s power. In my earlier post, I’d speculated that the real impact might be that union-level organizations must have their budgets reviewed by the vice-president. Still, it seems that my initial impression was correct in that the tribunal seems to have become a key forum for resolving disputes between the other two branches of government
Comments Off on Constitutional Tribunal aftermath (Myanmar/Burma)
Filed under Burma, constitutional tribunal, Hluttaw, Myanmar
It seems once more the Hluttaw is moving to reform Myanmar’s justice sector where the judges themselves cannot or will not. According to Irrawaddy, the Judicial Committee, formed last September, has already received 500 complaints from citizens about the abuse in the courts. On Tuesday, the lower house (Pyithu Hluttaw) passed a law granting the committee with the power to investigate these complaints.
We also got an interesting glimmer into the relationship between the judiciary and parliament. While not quite as testy as that between the Philippine Congress and Supreme Court (see here), it’s clear the Myanmar Supreme Court doesn’t entirely welcome the Hluttaw’s proposal. According to Irrawaddy:
Thein Nyunt, a respected MP and lawyer, said, “I rejected the presentation of the Union Supreme Court Judge which could undermine the core meaning of the [investigation powers] proposal, and all the MPs supported my views.”
As I’ve mentioned before, I think the Hluttaw is taking the right approach. It’s important to reform the courts before granting them independence. However, from the proposal currently on the table, it appears the Judicial Commission will focus on “naming and shaming” judges, but will lack enforcement powers. This can still be quite effective if done right. Singapore is infamous for using public humiliation as a punishment.
However, it’s not clear this strategy will work without a free media. In one of the few articles to look at judicial accountability, Stefan Voigt (2008) argues that media freedom encourages judicial accountability by exposing corrupt practices in court. With a free media and open hearings, journalists can sit in on cases and report on the progress of the case. While Myanmar’s media is becoming freer, it isn’t quite yet free enough, particularly for journalists to report on big judicial corruption cases. Also, a free press will be needed to press the Judicial Commission on its investigations and make the guardian of the guardians accountable.
Comments Off on Judicial Corruption Inquiry (Myanmar/Burma)
Filed under Burma, corruption, Myanmar
If somebody had asked me whether any court had upheld a smoker’s right to smoke, I’d have guessed no. However, Indonesia’s Mahkamah Konstitusi comes pretty close with its most recent decision. This week the court ruled that a government ban on smoking in public spaces must also require public spaces and workplaces to establish “smoking rooms” for anybody who wishes to tar up their lungs. According to The Jakarta Post, in reading the decision out, Chief Justice Mahfud argued that, “should the government fail to provide smoking rooms in state agencies; it would eliminate the right of smokers to smoke.” I’m not quite sure where the justices are finding this “right” – it’s certainly not in the plain text of the Constitution. If anything, it reminds me of the substantive due process jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court, which established a “penumbra” of privacy rights.
Comments Off on A constitutional right to smoke? (Indonesia)
Filed under indonesia, Mahkamah Konstitusi
Dominic J. Nardi, Jr. 
You must be logged in to post a comment.