Category Archives: Burma

August 28, 2012 · 01:20

Reps move towards impeachment (Burma/Myanmar)

Last week, I posted news about the constitutional crisis in Myanmar, in which the lower chamber of the legislature, the Pyithu Hluttaw, passed a resolution to impeach the Constitutional Tribunal members. On Friday, 162 MPs in the Amyotha Hluttaw passed a similar resolution. Notably, the votes in both chambers surpassed the two-thirds threshold necessary to impeach the judges.

However, it appears the legislature is still trying to give the tribunal members a way to back down. On Monday, A joint session of both chambers voted 447-168 (around 73%) calling upon the tribunal members to admit that they made a mistake in deciding that committees formed by parliament did not count as union-level organizations.

While Xinhua News did not provide a party-line breakdown of the vote, it seems that a broad coalition of MPs supports the impeachment drive, including Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker Shwe Mann and Aung San Suu Kyi. In fact, it appears the only large bloc against impeachment seems to be the military appointees. However, under § 334 of the Constitution, impeachment only requires a two-thirds vote, so the military does not have veto power.

The Myanmar Times interviewed me about the situation yesterday about the situation. I expressed my hope that the parliament could settle the dispute without impeachment because these sorts of constitutional crises tend to have long-term effects on judicial independence. However, perhaps more remarkable than the fact that a Burmese news journal decided to interview me is the fact that media are covering this dispute in depth and quite thoughtfully. Foreign-based experts like me can perhaps play a small role by informing the people of Myanmar about the experiences of courts from other countries.

Comments Off on Reps move towards impeachment (Burma/Myanmar)

Filed under Burma, constitutional tribunal, Myanmar

August 22, 2012 · 21:05

Constitutional Tribunal dispute heats up – even more (Myanmar/Burma)

Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker Shwe Mann’s deadline for the Constitutional Tribunal Justices to resign has come and passed. President Thein Sein rejected the Hluttaw’s call to pressure the justices to resign. Now, MPs are threatening impeachment.

One MP, Ba Shein, from the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party, is quoted in The Irrawaddy as saying:

We don’t have a lot of freedom to make laws, because they [the Constitutional Tribunal] are sitting here in Parliament, breathing down our necks.

According to one MP quoted in Mizzima, the NLD and USDP have the “same attitude” regarding impeachment.

I’ve already written at length my thoughts on the controversy here. One more aspect I’ll point out given this quote is that constitutional courts are supposed to constrain legislatures. I’ve heard the same complaints from MPs in Indonesia regarding the Mahkamah Konstitusi. However, the goal is that, in creating these constraints, the legislature actually empowers its ability to pass laws and govern over the longer term.

The fundamental question Myanmar faces today is whether to impeach the judges and enhance the ability of the Hluttaw to pass reforms over the short-term or to allow the judges to fulfill their term and allow the court to protect legislation over the long-term.

Read on for copies of two recent articles from The New Light of Myanmar:

Constitutional Tribunal of the Union holds press conference

NAY PYI TAW, 20 Aug-The Constitutional Tribunal of the Union held a press conference, at its meeting hall at 1 pm today, attended by Chairman and members of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union, local and foreign media men, reporters from local-based foreign news agency and guests.

Firstly, Chairman U Thein Soe of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union explained the purpose of holding the press conference. After that, the Chairman replied to the quires raised by local and foreign media men. The press conference came to an end with concluding speech by the Chairman. After the press release, Constitutional Tribunal of the Union released the statement No.1/2012. The following is the full translation of the statement.

Republic of the Union of Myanmar
Constitutional Tribunal of the Union
Statement No. 1/2012
3rd Waxing of Wagaung, 1374 ME
(20th August, 2012)

The Constitutional Tribunal of the Union gave its final verdict on a letter of submission made by the Union Attorney-General to Constitutional Tribunal of the Union, dated 2-2-2012, on behalf of the President on 28-3-2012.

Under the provisions of the Section 320 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union was set up to decide on disputes relating to the Constitution in accord with Basic Principles of Union under Chapter (1) and the Basic Principles of the Constitution. Under the provisions of the Section 322 of the Constitution, the following functions and duties of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union are conferred.

(a) interpreting the provisions under the Constitution;

(b) vetting whether the laws promulgated by the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, the Region Hluttaw, the State Hluttaw or the Self-Administered Division Leading Body and the Self-Administered Zone Leading Body are in conformity with the Constitution or not;

(c) vetting whether the measures of the executive authorities of the Union, the Regions, the States, and the Self-Administered Areas are in conformity with the Constitution or not;

(d) deciding Constitutional disputes between the Union and a Region, between the Union and a State, between a Region and a State, among the Regions, among the States, between a Region or a State and a Self-Administered Area and among the Self-Administered Areas;

(e) deciding disputes arising out of the rights and duties of the Union and a Region, a State or a Self- Administered Area in implementing the Union Law by a Region, State or Self-Administered Area;

(f) vetting and deciding matters intimated by the President relating to the Union Territory;

(g) functions and duties conferred by laws enacted by the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw.

In line with the functions and duties conferred by the Constitution, The Constitutional Tribunal of the Union gave its final verdict on a submission made by the President to define the meaning of a Union-Level Organization which is formed in accord with the Constitution. Under the Section 324 of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union, the resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union is final and conclusive.

The Constitutional Tribunals in the world countries decide Constitutional disputes while it is decided by Supreme Court in the countries that have no the Constitutional Tribunals. Chairman and members of The Constitutional Tribunals took oath of safeguarding the Constitution, obeying the State’s laws and the loyalty to the Constitution. So, the verdicts on the submissions are being given by the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union in accord with the Constitution in a loyal and fair manner.

The Constitutional Tribunal of the Union shall continue to carry out its functions and duties conferred by the Constitution by upholding the interests of the State and people, as they have sworn in.

It is up to two agencies to choose whatever political line of struggle of their own volition as both are independent ones formed in line with the constitution

Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw sends a message dated 14 August to President

President sends back a message dated 20 August to Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw

NAY PYI TAW, 20 Aug – The Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw sent a message dated 14 August, 2012 to the President of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

In the message, the Speaker said he sent the message to the President to advise him so that actions would be fair and could be at a least loss to those who concerned as the representatives of Pyithu Hluttaw did not accept the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union.

The Speaker said that 301 representatives which makes up the majority of the Pyithu Hluttaw, proposed him to impeach the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union through the Pyithu Hluttaw Rights Committee on 8 August, 2012, for the second time as they did not satisfy and accept the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union over the submission No. 3/Nya Ma (1) 3-1 (92) Na Pa Ta (72) made by the Union Attorney-General, on behalf of the President, on 2 February, 2012, On 26 April, 2012, 191 representatives of Pyithu Hluttaw filed the petition and sought approval from his through the Pyithu Hluttaw Rights Committee at the third regular session of the first Pyithu Hluttaw to submit a proposal to the Hluttaw to impeach Chairman and member of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union, and he suspended the issue, and he and chairmen of the Pyithu Hluttaw committees and Secretary of the Union Solidarity and Development Party presented the issue to the President. The chairmen of the Hluttaw committees and secretaries retold the representatives about what the President replied to them saying that the President would settle the issue satisfying all. Though negotiations were made with those who were concerned in the issue in an attempt to find the best solution for the issue, still, the issue was not yet settled, he added in the message.

Therefore, 301 representatives of Pyithu Hluttaw filed the petition and sought approval from him to impeach the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union on breach of the provisions prescribed in the Sub-section (a) (ii) of the Section 334 of the Constitution and inefficient discharge of their duties assigned by law as prescribed in Sub-section (v), he added.

He did not want to reach such situation but he assumed that the suitable and best way to settle the issue is to withdraw the submission made by the Union Attorney- General, on behalf of the President, and resigning of the chairman and members of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union at their own wish by 21 August, 2012, the Speaker said.

Regarding the issue, Legal Affairs and Special Cases Assessment Commission also suggested the Hluttaw that such action was suitable and fair and could be at least loss to the dignity of the State and the Hluttaws and those who were concerned in the issue.

Therefore, he sent the message to the President so that he could review and handle the situation, he said.

Regarding the above the message, the President replied the message to the Speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw on 20 August.

In his message to the Pyithu Hluttaw, the President expressed his thanks to the Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker for his suggestions for bringing about fair and just actions with least trauma to the personalities concerned as Hluttaw representatives disapproved of the verdict of the constitutional tribunal of the Union.

In his response to the suggestion by the Pyithu Hluttaw to withdraw the proposal submitted by the Union Attorney- General on behalf of him, the President explained the socalled designation of committees, commission and organizations formed by the respective Hluttaws. The government is responsible to manage appropriate financial and administrative matters if those committees, commission and organizations are designated as Union level organizations. Such management needs to be within the framework of laws and rules and regulations. It was asked to the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union to define the meaning of Union level organizations so as to make sure whether committees, commission and organizations formed by respective Hluttaws are under the name of Union level organizations.

That asking the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union to define the provision of the constitution within the framework of regulations is in fact aimed to ensure legal rights and duties of members of the Hluttaw committees, commission and organizations.

As regards to the case, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union delivered a verdict on 28 March, 2012, deciding that connotation of committees, commission and organizations formed by respective Hluttaws as Union level organizations is not in conformity with provisions of the constitution. It is the final verdict in accordance with Section 324 of the constitution and Article 23 of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union. The case is not on trial but final verdict has been delivered and thus it is impossible to withdraw the proposal under the tradition and procedures of the courts. The President requested the pardon of Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker asking him to put himself in government’s shoes.

The President then explained about allowing the chairperson and members of the constitutional tribunal of the Union retire before 21 August, 2012 of their own volition. The provision in sub-para (a) of Section 11 of the constitution is just aimed for possible most separation of three branches of national sovereignty-legislative power, executive power and judicial power and checks and balances. It would be against the law and unfair if the President would force the chairperson and members of the constitutional tribunal of the Union to resignation for the constitutional tribunal of the Union has acted freely to assume its responsibility vested by the constitution. Therefore, it cannot be forced the chairperson and members of the constitutional tribunal of Union to resign.

Members of the constitutional tribunal of the Union are nominated by the President and two Hluttaw Speakers and then appointed with the approval of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw. The members are legal experts with long judicial experiences, some of whom even dutifully took part in the National Assembly held from 2004 to 2007 for drafting the constitution. It is believed that they would not make reckless decision either by mistake or due to impartiality.

All the Pyithu Hluttaw representatives including the President himself have taken affirmation or sworn in to uphold and abide by the constitution and adhere to the laws of the State in the presence of the Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker.

So, the president has to abide by the verdict of the constitutional tribunal of the Union according to the provisions of Section 324 of the constitution and provisions of the Article 23 of the law of the constitutional tribunal of the Union.

Myanmar has just taken step forward to global stage with infant democracy. So, in order not to impede the strides of reforms undertaken by the legislative, executive and judicial pillars for democracy promotion in Myanmar because of the disagreement at present time, and in consideration of the 60 million population, and in order not to undermine the unity of the three pillars, it is advisable for the Hluttaw to exercise the legal rights vested by Chapter (12) of the constitution rather than pointing a finger at someone. It is supposed to be appropriate approach without causing disadvantages to anyone.

The President in conclusion said that it is up to two agencies to choose whatever political line of struggle of their own volition as both are independent ones formed in line with the constitution.-MNA

Comments Off on Constitutional Tribunal dispute heats up – even more (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Burma, constitutional tribunal, judicial independence, Myanmar

August 22, 2012 · 12:35

Trial by Jury (Myanmar/Burma)

While Chapter XXIII of Myanmar’s Code of Criminal Procedure does provide for a jury trial in certain criminal cases, it has not been used since 1946. With Myanmar’s democratic reforms, some feel now might be the time to bring jury trials back. According to The New Light of Myanmar,* several MPs have asked about the possibility of reintroducing jury trials to Burma/Myanmar. The MPs claimed that jury trials would strengthen judicial independence and reduce corruption.

While there hasn’t been much comparative research on jury systems,[1] the preliminary evidence suggests that they might be right. Juries help reduce corruption by acting as witnesses in the courtroom – especially important because the Hluttaw Judicial Committee cannot review every single case itself. Jury oversight ensures that cases are decided in accord with the facts presented in the courtroom. Moreover, it is more costly for litigants to bribe multiple jurors rather than a single judge. Indeed, one study of over 50 countries shows that countries that use jury systems have more independent courts and less judicial corruption.[2]

Jury systems should have the additional benefit of educating Myanmar’s citizens about the legal system, another benefit the MPs cite. Currently, many Myanmar citizens avoid using the judicial system because they perceive it as corrupt or too complex. By participating in a jury system, citizens will have the chance to understand how the courts operate in practice. Surveys in the United States reveal that people who participate in juries tend to have more faith in the legal system.[3]

The risk of juries coming to the “wrong” conclusion is minimal if the jury system is designed fairly. In the United States, surveys show that judges and jurors agree in 64-80% of cases. In fact, experimental evidence shows collectively groups tend to make better decisions than even the best experts.[4] However, Myanmar’s evidence law must be reformed in order to exclude from trial any evidence that would inappropriately bias jurors. Also, achieving an actual representative sample of “peers” on the bench is crucial because, as the post-Civil War South showed, if peers simply represent an oppressive majority then the jury system simply becomes a tyranny of the majority.

If the Judicial Committee does decide to adopt jury trials, it should first review the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that it conforms to the 2008 Constitution. Moreover, the law should be reviewed to make sure it provides juries with enough authority. Section 307, which allows the judge to overturn a jury verdict if he disagrees with the outcome, risks giving judges too much discretion.[5] It is also important to allow Myanmar citizens to participate in the jury system quickly in order to give it more legitimacy.

Overall, I’m optimistic that reformers inside the government are looking at jury trials. It won’t be a silver bullet for Myanmar’s ailing justice sector, but has the potential to change the incentives of actors within the justice system. I also agree with the MPs that it is best to introduce the jury system gradually, in phases, starting with a few townships.

[1] For more information about jury systems in other countries, see Valerie P. Hans, “Jury Systems Around the World,” Annual Review of Law & Social Science Vol. 4 (2008).

[2] Stefan Voigt, “The effects of lay participation in courts — A cross-country analysis,” European Journal of Political Economy Vol. 25 (2009).

[3] Neil Vidmar and Valerie P. Hans, American Juries: The Verdict (2007).

[4] Scott Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies (2008).

[5] A similar problem weakened the jury system in Russia and failed to stop corruption in the courts. S.C. Thaman, “The nullification of the Russian jury: lessons for jury-inspired reform in Eurasia and beyond,” Cornell International Law Journal Vol. 40 (2007).

*MPs call for uprightness of judicial system, right to trial by jury

…

U Thaung of Mawleik Constituency, U Ba Shein of Kyaukpyu Constituency, Daw Nan Wah Nu of Kunhein Constituency, U Win Myint of Pathein Constituency and U Thein Nyunt of Thingangyun Constituency discussed the report of the Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial and Legal Affairs Committee submitted on 24 day session of the Hluttaw. Chairman of Judicial and legal Affairs Committee Thura U Aung Ko explained intention and stances of the report, followed by discussion of other MPs.

This was followed by a general round of discussion. They argued that uprightness of the judicial sector calls not only for duty consciousness of judges but also for participation of the entire public. Only with the checks and balances among the three supreme powers of the nation, can disciplineflourishing multi-party democratic nation emerge with good governance and clean government.

It is desperately required to correct the judicial system of the country, argued the MPs recalling the memories of judicial system with three or five judges at court in the time of Socialist Programme Party, citing that there was no corruption those days like these days. It is of useless to point a finger at the civil servants in service from 1989 to date. Hluttaw represen-tatives need to seriously consider what laws should be enacted to prevent corruption.

In the time of People’s Council, judges were just the representatives of people, which called for protection of law. In modern times, judges are scholars with a strong sense of rationality and no more protection should be given to them.

Conditions are different in other countries. If wished to see the results in shortest time, it is advisable to provide the civil servants with sufficient and revoke all the protective laws and again to enact these laws when civil servants have enough sense of responsibility and accountability. It would be more appropriate to make a shift to trial by jury beginning from the level of township judges together with people’s representatives. It would fulfil more wishes of the people.

Member of Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial and Legal Affairs Committee U Than Tun read report of the committee and the report was approved by the Hluttaw.

Comments Off on Trial by Jury (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Burma, jury, Myanmar

August 16, 2012 · 00:46

Constitutional Tribunal under fire (Myanmar/Burma)

During my trip to Myanmar in May, I’d heard rumors that the government was considering impeaching the Constitutional Tribunal members over the “union-level organizations” decision (Case No. 03/2012). As always with rumors, it’s important to be careful and you can only judge its veracity based on the source. I’d heard the same rumor from at least two different, respected people, so I took it seriously. Nonetheless, several months later I’d seen nothing in the news about such simmering tensions, so I began to wonder.

Now, according to Mizzima, 301 Pyithu Hluttaw representatives signed a petition to impeach the Constitutional Tribunal judges over the “union-level organizations” case. Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker Shwe Mann announced on his official website that he would formally ask the Constitutional Tribunal members to resign by August 21 (one week). He also stated that he is informing the president about how the legislature feels.

While this has been a long time coming, it seems the new Rule of Law and Tranquility Committee is the cause of the latest impasse. Some allege that the committee – headed by Aung San Suu Kyi – is a “union-level organization” and as such contradicts the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision. However, it’s not clear how much Daw Suu herself had to do with the petition. At least one prominent MP from an opposition party, Ba Shein from the Rakhine Nationalies Development Party, was quoted in The Irrawaddy as claiming:

The Constitutional Tribunal is now assuming a position above Parliament that harms its legislative powers… If they continue to exercise their influence in this way, what is left of the role of legislators?

The article doesn’t indicate which parties support the impeachment, but with so many MPs it’s clear that at least a sizable faction of the USDP does. More importantly, 301 out of 440 MPs signed the petition. The 2008 Constitution only requires a two-thirds supermajority (§ 334(c) and § 71(c)), so if the judges don’t resign the risk of impeachment is real.

Neither the article nor the statement explain why the tribunal’s decision was so egregious that the government would ask the judges to resign. My sources said that the government simply had no faith in the members’ competence. Most of the judges aren’t lawyers after all. Also, they were upset that the court went outside of its jurisdiction. Still, this is not a case that threaten’s the new governments core interests so the strong response was somewhat surprising.

Nonetheless, for what it’s worth, I feel compelled to point out that impeachment could set a horrible precedent so soon into Myanmar’s transition. Constitutional courts often face constitutional crises early in their tenures. When the government respects its decision, as in the infamous Marbury v. Madison in the U.S. case, the court survives and has a chance to acclimate the government to constitutional restraints. However, if the government cracks down on the court early in its lifetime, the court will suffer a chilling effect and the government will lose the benefits of having a constitutional review mechanism. In short, constitutional courts succeed when political leaders are farsighted enough to realize that the long-term benefits of constitutional review often outweigh the short-term benefits of overturning a particular decision.

Myanmar’s judicial system has suffered systematic political interference since the 1962 coup, including sacking judges who showed too much independence. Since the 2010 elections, the central government has not overtly attacked the courts, but local elites still use their influence in sensitive cases. Judges need time to update their expectations and behaviors to the new political environment. If judges see the government respond so forcefully in this case, it is impossible to imagine them deciding politically sensitive cases independently in the near future.

There is a better alternative. The Constitutional Tribunal judges only serve for 5 years. The current bench has been seated since March 2011, or almost 1.5 years. This means that, at worst, the government only need tolerate the current bench for 3.5 years, until 2015. It’s hard to imagine the tribunal causing much trouble over that time. The court has only heard about 2-3 cases per year so far and can only receive cases from government officials. Moreover, the Hluttaw and president could agree to simply not submit cases to the tribunal and avoid its jurisdiction.

Shwe Mann has thus far vocally supported the reformists and Myanmar’s democratic project. I have no reason to doubt his intentions. He seems to hope that the Constitutional Tribunal can still find some way to resolve the crisis short of impeachment. For the sake of Myanmar’s judiciary, I hope he succeeds.

The New Light of Myanmar ran an article containing proceedings from the Hluttaw, including portions of Shwe Mann’s speech about the Constitutional Tribunal:

Speaker requests patience of parliamentarian; row over Union level organization definition to be sent to President

NAY PYI TAW, 14 Aug-Pyithu Hluttaw regular session continued for 26th day at Pyithu Hluttaw Hall in Hluttaw Complex here at 10.10 am today, attended by Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw Thura U Shwe Mann, 399 Pyithu Hluttaw representatives, and members of Pyithu Hluttaw Legal Affairs and Special Cases Assessment Commission, and the speakers of Bago Region Hluttaw and Rakhine State Hluttaw as observers.

At today’s session, clarification regarding the parliamentary affairs was made, two questions answered, one new proposal submitted and one bill discussed and reported to the Hluttaw.

The Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker said he received the proposal to impeach the Chairperson and Members of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union on breach of any of the provisions under the constitution as prescribed in Section 334, Subsection (a) (i) of the constitution and inefficient discharge of duties assigned by law as prescribed in Sub-section (v) of the same section, signed by 301 Pyithu Hluttaw representatives from the Hluttaw Rights Committee for the second time.

Despite reluctance to make such impeachment, the Hluttaw speaker would handle requests and duties assigned fairly by the Hluttaw representatives. The Hluttaw representatives would also have the goodwill not lesser than the Speaker. While alternatives, except the impeachment, are being sought, the Hluttaw representatives should exercise patience.

The Speaker said that after informing the attitude of the Hluttaw representatives to the President, he would take action to prevent defamation of the country, the Hluttaw, the impeached person, and the related organizations and persons. His will is to let the President know of the desire and attitude of the Hluttaw representatives and make appropriate actions.

The message would be sent to the President to withdraw a submission, which provoked the case, to the tribunal by the Union Attorney-General on behalf of the President made on 2 February, to urge the chairperson and members of the tribunal to resign at their own wish, and to complete these actions by 21 August. The Speaker informed the Hluttaw of his attitude.

He urged the representatives to show their benevolence and sympathy. The tribunal informed the Pyithu Hluttaw on 3 February of the submission made by the President. Deputy Speaker U Nanda Kyaw Swa, vested with authority by the Pyithu Hluttaw, made a clarification over the President’s submission at the tribunal on 17 February. On 28 March, the tribunal passed the resolution that defining committees, commissions and organizations formed by respective Hluttaws as Union level organizations is not appropriate with provisions under the constitution.

According to findings and comments of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Joint Bill Committee and discussions of 10 Pyidaungsu Hluttaw representatives at Pyidaungsu Hluttaw session, the attitude of the MPs suggests that the tribunal has no authority to make such resolution on provisions under existing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law, Pyithu Hluttaw Law and Amyotha Hluttaw Law which was also made mistakenly beyond the legal framework. The mistake harmed the reputation of Hluttaws and Hluttaws representatives, causing limitations, difficulties and impact on duties of Hluttaws and Hluttaw representatives.

On 26 April, the Hluttaw Rights Committee informed him of the potential submission of the impeachment proposal signed by 191 Pyithu Hluttaw representatives at third regular session of Pyithu Hluttaw, the Speaker said. He suspended the submission and met and urged chairpersons of Pyithu Hluttaw and officials of Union Solidarity and Development Party to make presentation to the President who later informed that the coordination would be made to settle the issue and the submission would be withdrawn if necessary.

The impeachment was suspended for that message. The Speaker said, he made negotiations with President and other officials to avoid impeachment. Since 9 August, the attitude of the Hluttaw representatives had been made clear to the President and he was requested to seek the best possible way, except the impeachment, to settle the issue.

As the issue is unsettled till now, the lawmakers face difficulties in discharging duties. Their annoyance became aroused and submitted the proposal signed by 301 representatives to impeach the chairperson and members of the tribunal.

The Hluttaw representatives were urged to wait for the actions of the President in a time limit upon the message. He requested patience of the representatives to do impeachment only if the case is not settled in the time limit.

Deputy Speaker U Nanda Kyaw Swa said in his discussion that Bill Committee, Public Accounts Committee, Hluttaw Rights Committee and Government’s Guarantees, Pledges and Undertakings Vetting Committee were formed in the first regular session of the Hluttaw and 19 other committees and Legal Affairs and Special Cases Assessment Commission in the second regular session. The Pyithu Hluttaw Law Section 2 (h) defines these committees and commissions as Union level organizations.

The Union Attorney-General Law and the Union Auditor-General Law also prescribes the same provision.

The Chairman of State Peace and Development Council signed and enacted those Union Attorney-General Law and the Union Auditor-General law. The duties, authorities and rights of all committees are the same with four original Hluttaw committees. The deputy speaker elected under the constitution is the chairman of the Hluttaw Rights Committee, the Pyithu Hluttaw Law suggests. The organization led by the deputy speaker, the Union level official, is the Union level organization and the committees and commissions which have the same status with it are inarguably the Union level organizations.

These are inarguably Union level organizations according to both the law and the fact. But, the Union Attorney-General on behalf of the President put forward a submission at the tribunal whether the definition of the Union level organization in Hluttaw Laws is in accord with the constitution. As the tribunal informed the Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker of the submission, the deputy speaker made presentation on the fixed date. Another clarification was made by the deputy speaker, on behalf of the Speaker, on 24 March.

The deputy speaker said he, representing the Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker and 440 Hluttaw representatives, had to stand for about an hour to hear the declaration of the resolution at the tribunal on 28 March.

He had to stand for one hour listening the wrong decision that said that the definition of the Union-level organization prescribed in the laws of the Hluttaws is not in conformity with the State Constitution. He continued to say that it was know to all that the wrong decision is the hindrance to amending the Pyithu Hluttaw Law, the Deputy Speaker said.

On 26 April, about 200 representatives sought approval from the Speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw through the Chairman of Pyithu Hluttaw Rights Committee to submitt a proposal to the Hluttaw to impeach the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union for not dutiful to the tasks assigned to the committee by the State Constitution and for not abiding by the Transitory Provisions of the Chapter-14 of the Constitution.

The Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw requested for the patience and the representatives listened to the Speaker.

However, news journals wrongly criticized the Union-level organizations, and some online news attacked the designating the Rule of Law and Tranquility Committee led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as a Union-level organization saying that the designation was not in conformity with the State Constitution.

Therefore, over 300 representatives sent the petition to the Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw through the Chairman of Pyithu Hluttaw Rights Committee for impeaching the Chairman and members of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union under Section 136 of the Pyithu Hluttaw Law and under section 334 (d) (2) of the Constitution. The Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw requested the representatives to wait and he would settle the issue at the best of his ability, the Deputy Speaker said.

The Deputy Speaker thanked the representatives for their understanding for two times while waiting until the Speaker would negotiate with the Constitutional Tribunal of the Union.

On behalf of the representatives, the Deputy Speaker reiterated what the Speaker told was the best way was to settle the issue through negotiation first before impeachment and requested the Speaker to translate his words into action.

Afterwards, the Speaker replied that he would send a letter to the President in an attempt to settle the issue and discussed what massages should be written in the letter.

…

Comments Off on Constitutional Tribunal under fire (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Burma, constitutional tribunal, Myanmar

August 14, 2012 · 04:37

Suu Kyi heading Rule of Law (Myanmar/Burma)

In yet another twist in Burmese politics, Aung San Suu Kyi has been appointed to chair the Hluttaw Rule of Law and Stability. According to an article in The Irrawaddy, the committee oversees the legislature, judiciary, civil service, and media to make sure they conform to the law.

I haven’t seen details yet on the staff or much else about the committee’s jurisdiction. However, one thing that seemed odd is that many of the MPs selected did not know they would be on the committee until announced. Moreover, the committee contains many key opposition party reformers, which could either alienate the committee from the real sources of power or embolden it to propose dramatic reforms.

Comments Off on Suu Kyi heading Rule of Law (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma, Myanmar, Rule by Law