พระราชอำนาจของพระมหากษัตริย์ในการยับยั้งร่างกฎหมาย
State is regarded as the institutionalisation of supremacy power or sovereignty in which the Constitution is the highest Statute that prescribes appointments and power of State’s officials and personnel. Similarly, the institution of Monarchy is subject to the Palace Law on succession which regulate...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Theses and Dissertations |
| Language: | Thai |
| Published: |
จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://digiverse.chula.ac.th/Info/item/dc:22820 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | State is regarded as the institutionalisation of supremacy power or sovereignty in which the Constitution is the highest Statute that prescribes appointments and power of State’s officials and personnel. Similarly, the institution of Monarchy is subject to the Palace Law on succession which regulates the coronation process and the Constitution and its constitutional convention which limits the exercise of the royal prerogative. Based on recent studies, it is found that in the United Kingdom, the royal prerogative regarding the process of enacting Laws is characteristic of symbolic power. As a final stage of the process, the King will grant his royal assent and sign his royal title in the Bill which the Parliament has approved in order to announce the legal validation of the said Bill. This formality has been a long accepted constitutional convention which implies that the King will not exercise his refusal of Royal assent as he acts on the advice of the Cabinet. If the Cabinet advises the King to withhold his royal assent, it is deemed inappropriate as it violates the constitutional convention. Consequently, the King will only exercise the royal prerogative to refuse his royal assent in an emergency and particular situation. In Thailand, the royal prerogative relating to veto a Bill is exercised on the King’s initiation, though there is an exception. In accordance with the provision of the Constitutional of Thailand which stipulates that the National Assembly with the votes of not less than two-thirds of members of both Houses can resolve to reaffirm on enacting the Bill to which the King withholds his royal assent as if the King had signed it. Therefore, the royal prerogative to refuse his royal assent is a discretionary power which the King will only exercise if there is clearly an error or if the National Assembly is composed of members who were appointed, as opposed to being elected. Whenever the King refuses to give his royal assent, it is inappropriate that the National Assembly overturns the King’s veto by resolving to reaffirm on the enactment of the Laws. As a consequence, it has become a constitutional convention in Thailand that the Bill will not be promulgated. In addition, the King has the prerogative which is derived from tradition in giving royal advice to the Council of Ministers in enacting Royal Decree and Royal Act by way of giving the King’s statements regarding the proposed Bill. As a result, the greatest respect as the royal moral justice, the King has exercised his royal prerogative relating to the process of promulgation the law together with his thorough and extraordinary analysis and considerations before signing his signature in the bill. This demonstrates a deep appreciation for His Majesty the King of Thailand’s kindness, as well as that every reign of Thai Monarchy has done. |
|---|