[An edited version published in The Phnom Penh Post, 18 July 2014]
CNRP Should Not Invoke Parliamentary
Immunity
Phnom Penh, 17 July 2014
I read Immunity
Moves to the Fore published in the Phnom Penh
post on 17 July 2014 with great interest and would like to respond to a few
basic misunderstandings among the public reflected in the article.
The issue is: when
does the parliamentary immunity attach?
The answer is really simple and clear based on the parliamentary
immunity’s internal logic and the Constitution.
Simply, the privilege is not absolute for a parliamentarian
and attaches only to “opinions expressed in the exercise of his/her duties” (Art.
80). It follows then that this partial
privilege assumes the existence of a legitimate National Assembly.
The
Cambodian People Party-established National Assembly is prima
facie unconstitutional.
How is the National Assembly formed? Simply, the formation of the National Assembly is a process that must satisfy four conditions: (i) the election results produced at least 120 members; (ii) these 120 MPs-elect convened the initial session (iii) at the invitation and presence of the King, and (iv) they took an oath before assuming official functions.
How is the National Assembly formed? Simply, the formation of the National Assembly is a process that must satisfy four conditions: (i) the election results produced at least 120 members; (ii) these 120 MPs-elect convened the initial session (iii) at the invitation and presence of the King, and (iv) they took an oath before assuming official functions.
The Cambodian National Rescue Party deems this CPP-established
Parliament unconstitutional. Therefore,
consistency and coherency require that the CNRP forgo the claim to
parliamentary immunity.
Legal and political considerations also require that the
CNRP forgo the privilege.
Particularly, the detained MPs-elect should not invoke this
privilege for the following reasons.
First, invoking it
will not make any difference to the Kafkaesque legal proceeding, at best; it
will work against the CNRP in its political negotiation, at worst.
Legally, the charges against them of
insurrection and incitement are baseless, the proceeding overtly political and
riddled with irregularities, and thus they have no need to invoke this immunity
even if it has force. To invoke it is to
give inadvertent legitimacy, however slight, to the trumped-up charges.
Politically, invoking it will only undermine
the CNRP’s boycott of the CPP-established Parliament. It will create further confusion for it and
the public, make it fall prey to this CPP set up, and weaken its hands in
future negotiations.
Second and to the
contrary, it is to CNRP’s advantage not to rely on the parliamentary
immunity. In doing so, it clears one
smokescreen to the risible, politically-motivated charges. This is where the focus is and it should be
kept here, without any distraction of immunity talk. The legal case is groundless: let it stay
clearly so without obfuscation of other side entanglements.
And force the authority to deal with their nakedness—the serious
and laughable charges in the political theatre, in plain view for all to see
and ridicule. After all, the emperor has
no clothes.
Related, in not
invoking their parliamentary immunity, the falsely accused CNRP elected MPs
help to strengthen the position of other common defendants who have been
wrongly, politically charged who are not elected MPs with the possibility of
immunity.
__________________________
Theary
C. Seng, Juris Doctor
Founding
President, CIVICUS: Center for Cambodian Civic Education
No comments:
Post a Comment