CONCLUSION

The case Thai Steel Galvanized Ltd was not a hard case. The complainants in the Court did not have strong reasons to win the case. Nevertheless, the case is of considerate interest, since it has shown some peculiarities in the reasoning of the top Thai judiciary. There is on the one hand a reluctance to examine the substance of the constitutional rights and on the other hand there is a great legal skill in finding procedural limitations for the complainants to challenge governmental actions. Instead of considering the core of the issue - that is the rights been affected by specific governmental actions - it seems that both the complainants and the judges spoke much less about the substances of the rights than about the procedural aspects of filing the complaint and the procedural reasons. The legal counsel for the complainants has shown a good legal skill in finding a reason to file a complaint to the Court, and the Court – a good legal skill in finding a reason to avoid considering the substance of it. What is clear that the real constitutional rights were not at the centre of the battle. Everything, or almost everything was centered on procedural aspects of filing a complaint. Instead of saying plainly, that an obligation of the debtor to return one’s debt to an assigned creditor cannot be considered as a violation of the constitutional rights, the Court went into consideration of all technicalities of law trying, and indeed succeeding, to find a sufficient reason to deny the complaint. It is a natural outcome that the complainants lost the case, but the end of the game does not appear promising for those complainants who have a stronger reason to bring to the Court in the future. The Court by the majority eight against one decided that complainants have no standing in questioning the process of issuing emergency decrees including the rationale for those decrees. Was it wise for the Court to limit its own power to review the process of issuing such decrees? There is little doubted that Thai judges have enough skills to find the way out if they are willing to scrutinize the governmental actions. The only question remains: will they be willing to?

It seems that there is one thing which the Thai judges still lack despite their great abilities in using the letter of law. It is an open and sincere appeal to common sense and to the moral tradition of Thai people. In a democratic society such an appeal would be legitimate when determining the substance of constitutional rights and freedoms. Moreover, it would be a great contribution to the whole world if the Thai judges will bring the treasures of Thai common sense in the open room of legal reasoning(7).

---

(7) Thai folk tradition and legal reasoning has been examined in some detail in the book: Shytov A. Thai Folktales and Law. – Acts: Chiang Mai, 2004.