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.
Critics agree that much of Southeast Asia desperately needs judicial reform and rule of law. Yet, there is remarkably little comparative scholarship on law and legal institutions in the region. In this blog, I'll follow constitutional developments in Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
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:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment