November 15, 2011 · 06:43

Strange bedfellows?

More controversy between Burma’s two Hluttaw chambers. The two chambers are trying to resolve a bill regulating peaceful protests. According to The Myanmar Times, the Pyithu Hluttaw is seeking a stronger bill than the Amyotha Hluttaw. In particular, U Thein Nyunt of Thingangyun argued that protesters should be allowed to carry the national flag, and not just the flag of their organization or party.

A few things strike out at me. From a legal point of view, Thein Nyunt is using the 2008 Constitution to justify his arguments about the bill. It’s fascinating to see that the constitution – so maligned just a year ago – now becomes a platform for rights debates in the Hluttaw.

Politically, the amount of influence Thein Nyunt has over this issue is surprising. He is, after all, a former NLD member and current MP from the National Democratic Force. Yet, he is not only allowed to speak out, but Speaker Thura Shwe Mann approved his objections. I certainly wouldn’t have predicted this a year ago…

Comments Off on Strange bedfellows?

Filed under Burma, Hluttaw, Myanmar, speech

November 15, 2011 · 06:23

There is no reason to ask Constitutional Tribunal for opinions

For now, it seems the Pyithu Hluttaw has won and the Hluttaw will not forward laws to the Constitutional Tribunal for vetting before they’re enacted into legislation. However, I thought this passage from the November 14 edition of The New Light of Myanmar was interesting:

Bill Committee or Joint Bill Committee accomplished its duties after submitting bills to the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw. It is not responsible for scrutinizing bills approved or deemed to be approved by Pyidaungsu Hluttaw again as they have been scrutinized step by step. Any organization or person, which is responsible or has undertaken, has no right to reveal any doubt whether it is accorded with the Constitution or not. There is no reason to ask Constitutional Tribunal for opinions.

There is nothing else in the lengthy article about the Constitutional Tribunal, but it seems somebody at the editor’s office wanted to reemphasize that the new Joint Bill Committee is not exercising a constitutional review function. I’m a bit surprised at the negative attitude because the last NLM article I saw about this debate was somewhat more sympathetic to the Amyothat Hluttaw. We’ll see if this really is the end of the debate and whether, as NLM so boldly states, there is no reason to ask Constitutional Tribunal for opinions.

Comments Off on There is no reason to ask Constitutional Tribunal for opinions

Filed under Burma, constitutional tribunal, Myanmar

November 15, 2011 · 05:55

Political insurance or human rights?

According to PhilStar, in an 8-5 vote, the Philippine Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the implementation of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) watchlist order (WLO) against former President and current Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. As I mentioned last week, cynics might suspect the justices of simply protecting their patron. However, freedom travel is an human right protected by the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (remember the refusniks in the former U.S.S.R.).

For politicians, this dual nature of the justice system presents a delightful irony. The very way courts act to protect former political leaders necessitates their invoking constitutional rights. Thus, the very political leaders who often violated their citizens’ human rights become amongst the first to hide behind them when out of power. In political science, we’d call this a severe case of observational equivalence – when we can’t tell whether the court is acting in good faith or with political motives.

Comments Off on Political insurance or human rights?

Filed under Arroyo, Philippines, political insurance, Supreme Court

November 14, 2011 · 05:32

A visit from big brother

While The New Light of Myanmar often reports on foreign delegations, it’s not often that the exchange focuses on judicial affairs. Yesterday, a delegation from China arrived led by Bai Jingfu, Deputy Director of the Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress. He was in Naypyitaw met by Chairman of the Pyithu Hluttaw Judiciary and Legal Affairs Committee Thura U Aung Ko.

I’d only heard rumors before that Burma was looking to China as a model for governance, but this latest report might suggest an actual exchange. While still authoritarian, China’s government has improved the capacity and efficiency of its judicial system, so Mr. Bai might have insights to share. On the other hand, China’s Communist law system is (or should be) very different from Burma’s common law heritage. I’d love to see what they end up discussing. Sadly, I doubt we’ll see leaks from their meetings reported in NLM anytime soon.
I’ve reprinted the brief news clipping below:

Chinese Dy Director of Internal & Judicial Affairs Committee of NPC arrives

NAY PYI TAW, 13 Nov – A Chinese delegation led by Mr. Bai Jingfu, Deputy Director of the Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, visited Maha Myatmuni Buddha Image and U Pein Bridge in Mandalay this morning.

They left Mandalay this evening by air for Nay Pyi Taw. They were seen off at Mandalay International Airport by Deputy Speaker of Mandalay Region Hluttaw U Aung Htay Kyaw and members.

The Chinese delegation was welcomed at Nay Pyi Taw Airport by Chairman of Pyithu Hluttaw Judiciary and Legal Affairs Committee Thura U Aung Ko, Chairman of International Relations Committee U Hla Myint Oo and officials.-MNA

Comments Off on A visit from big brother

Filed under Burma, China, judicial reform, Myanmar

November 9, 2011 · 05:41

Hostage to a metabolic bone biopsy

I don’t often write about “metabolic bone biopsies” on my blog. However, that’s the procedure former Philippine president Arroyo needs, and that’s what the Aquino administration Justice Department is seeking to deny her. Or so Arroyo claims. Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima issued a watchlist order against Arroyo to prevent her and her husband from fleeing the country while facing plunder and poll fraud charges. According to PhilStar, Arroyo has challenged the WLO as impairing her constitutional right to travel (Article III, § 1 and 6) and filed suit before the Supreme Court. It will be particularly interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules, given the hostility between it and the Aquino administration. Moreover, 12 of the 15 justices are Arroyo appointees, which as I wrote last year became controversial as Arroyo managed to appoint the chief justice. I guess we’ll see whether the Philippine Supreme Court provides that political insurance Arroyo had been banking on.

Comments Off on Hostage to a metabolic bone biopsy

Filed under Aquino, Arroyo, Philippines, Supreme Court