Faces a new version of the amnesty bill a difficult journey

It is unlikely the latest revised amnesty law submitted by the 35-member screening panel on Friday, offering a comprehensive amnesty for perpetrators of law involved in the political conflict, will easily pass the legislative process.
Point is the most controversial in the revised version is to expand the coverage of the bill to include those accused of wrongdoing by the Assets Examination Committee of the now-defunct (AEC), established after a coup in 2006 to investigate the alleged irregularities by the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.
Resulted in investigations AEC in many of the cases against these politicians, including the one that led to the prison sentence against Thaksin.
In October 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the former prime minister for two years in prison for abuse of power in the Ratchadaphisek land scandal, after him and his wife bought a piece of land seized state for much less than the market price.
In February 2010, the court seized Bt46 billion of Thaksin's assets believed to be obtained from the abuse of power, while the other cases against him have been suspended while he was a fugitive abroad.
Apart from the resistance of the critics of the government and the opposition parties not to mention the red and yellow shirt supporters, which could lead to a massive protest, and there are some points of law the controversial discussion.
The first question is whether the revised draft law contradicts the principles of the original text.
Obviously, in the revised version, major changes have been made in Article 3, which was not to grant amnesty to fugitive former prime minister, and the leaders of the protest and the relevant authorities in the 2010 crackdown on protesters.
The change proposed by Prayuth Siripanich, a member of the team under the Pheu Thai quota, to go against the original bill, which was posed Worachai Hema, Pheu Thai Samut Prakan MP and co-leader of the red shirts.
He said the principle of issuing Worachai that the law will not only benefit those who are facing charges related to political rallies and expression. The statement did not mention any cases of corruption.
The second argument is whether the new version of the bill is the financial law.
The point is that if a bill to allow the seized money to be returned automatically to Thaksin, it would be considered a draft law related financial, which need the support of the Prime Minister before the House of Representatives proposes.
Article 143 of the Constitution provides that in the case of the current uncertainty about whether the bill is the finance bill, "it must be in the power of a joint session of the President of the House of Representatives and the President of all the 35 standing committees to take a decision in this regard."
He said when the bill was in the deliberations of the House of Representatives in the first reading in August, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont circle he had no doubts about the Amnesty Bill Worachai, and so he was not invited to the meeting.
Pheu Thai tried to mitigate this issue, saying that the screening panel did not give money to Thaksin returns, so the bill was not the Finance Act. If ex-PM wants his money back, he can submit a petition to the court. However, the opposition party has raised fears that the Thai taxpayers would then have to return BT50 billion in total for a person convicted of corruption.
The third question is whether the bill violates Article 309 of the Constitution.
Article 309 stipulates that "all things are guaranteed by the 2006 interim constitution and constitutional legitimacy, including all work on these issues, whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution, is constitutional under this Constitution." This article means to protect the actions of the coup-makers and related other organizations, in this case the AEC, as constitutional.
Legal experts say that if any business or organizations in the Constitution came to be canceled, it must be done through the amendment of the Charter, and not through the normal version of the bill.
The panel expects checking on the draft amnesty law, which will be forwarded to the House of Representatives for the second and third readings early next month.
All three legal points eventually go to the Constitutional Court, which will decide whether the bill is unconstitutional, as the democratic opposition and some members of the Senate will submit a petition to the court certainly after the bill passes parliament.