Tin Lin Oo - A new democratic nation with fresh blood

In recent months, a major conflict has emerged between the three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The problem began with a petition submitted to the Constitutional Court by the Attorney General of the Union on behalf of the President. Then, events took a dramatic turn. The President sent a message to the Speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw, the Speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw sent a message back to the President, the Constitutional Court held a press conference, filed a writ, and the parliaments voted to impeach the court. In the end, the constitutional dispute (whether the committees formed by the parliaments are at the union level or not) did not yield any satisfactory solution, and nine members of the Constitutional Court resigned.

This problem is not a case of a fire starting from garbage, but a fire that burns down the king's palace and the country is reduced to ashes. It is not a case of a mountain collapsing. It is a case of a mountain collapsing and the grass is flattened. It is a historical event where they did not try to solve a problem that could have been solved peacefully, but rather worked to create a "terrible precedent" for the country.

Is the problem over here? Which side won the showdown? Did the parliament win? Did the president win? Did the committees win? Win-Win, Win-Lose, or Lose-Lose? I think we need to review this. Many questions await us in order to do so.

(1) Once the Constitutional Tribunal withdraws, can the parliamentary affairs committees be automatically confirmed as being at the union level?

(2) Who will be reappointed in the event that nine (9) members of the Constitutional Court resign (in the event of the collapse of the judiciary)? Will the newly appointed Constitutional Court accept and confirm the fact that “Parliamentary Affairs Committees are at the Union level” (whether by order of the President, because they dare not defy the Parliament, or because they are concerned about the events that have occurred in the past)?

(3) Since the fact that parliamentary affairs committees are at the union level is not included in the 2008 Constitution, and since they have decided that parliamentary affairs committees are not at the union level, will they still pressurize the new Constitutional Tribunal by making accusations and making accusations to force it to resign?

To examine the source of the problem, the discrepancy between the 2008 constitution and the 2010 parliament laws (it is important to first acknowledge that both laws were drafted by the NLD/SPDC government) is clearly stated in the preamble of the constitution: “The State Peace and Development Council, recognizing the need for a long-term and strong constitution for the future of the country, convened a national conference in 1993, and drafted it with the participation of ethnic representatives from all townships and people with extensive experience in various aspects of politics, security, administration, economics, social affairs, and law.” The preamble of the parliament laws also states that “…the State Peace and Development Council is to carry out the necessary tasks for the implementation of the constitution, and this law is enacted to ensure the smooth functioning of the legislative, administrative, and judicial functions of the state, “All acts performed prior to the date of the coming into force of this Constitution shall be deemed to have been performed in accordance with this Constitution.” According to this statement, the Constitution, which came into force on January 31, 2011, had to accept and ratify the Hluttaw Laws (2010) enacted before that date to facilitate the legislative, judicial and administrative mechanisms under that Constitution as parts of the Constitution.

What needs to be clearly understood here is that the drafting bodies are not different, the principles drawn up are not different, the information and interpretations stated in the Hluttaw laws are not a contradiction that is explained by different interpretations in the Constitution, and the information included in the Hluttaw laws is not included in the Constitution. The information in the law that is not specifically stated in the Constitution is included in the Hluttaw laws. In other words, it is not a contradiction, not a difference, not a contradiction, but a gap.

A federal-level organization is one that is established under the Constitution.

• Union Government
• National Defense and Security Council
• National Constitutional Tribunal
• Union Election Commission
• Chief Justice of the Union
• Supreme Court of the Union
• Attorney General of the Union
• Auditor General of the Union
• Union Civil Service Commission
• Committees and commissions formed by the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, Pyithu Hluttaw, and the National Assembly----

It is clearly stated in the laws of the Pyithu Hluttaw, the Amyotha Hluttaw and the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, the three chambers of the Hluttaw. It is undeniable that the existing laws of the Pyithu Hluttaw, the Pyithu Hluttaw and the Amyotha Hluttaw stipulate that the committees and commissions established and assigned by each Hluttaw are Union-level organizations. The 2008 Constitution does not specify what kind of organizations are Union-level organizations. Therefore, the Hluttaw laws upheld by the Hluttaw and the 2008 Constitution upheld by the Court are not contradictory or inconsistent; what is detailed in one is simply not stated in the other.

If we were to quote the Court’s analysis here, it would be clear that the real flaw and weakness is the 2008 Constitution itself, even though the laws of the various parliaments define the term “union-level organization,” by considering the fact that it is included in the analysis. “The State Peace and Development Council ... has convened a national conference since 1993, as a long-term and strong constitution is essential for the future of the country. It was drafted by people with extensive experience in various aspects of politics, security, administration, economics, social affairs, and law, and by ethnic representatives from all townships. It took 14 years from 1993 to September 2007, and “the constitution that was said to have been drafted did not take into account the roles and powers of the committees and commissions that will be established in all parliaments as required by this law,” The fact that they did not specify it makes one wonder whether they were deliberately trying to destabilize the young democratic country through conflicts. It makes one wonder whether they had systematically planted time bombs and landmines in the foundation of the solidly constructed building.

The executive branch (President), the legislative branch (three chambers of parliament) and the judicial branch (Constitutional Court) involved in this problem have not addressed the root cause of the problem. How to resolve the problem through negotiation, but have turned a blind eye to their responsibilities. They have put their egos first. The Constitutional Court has also held fast to the Constitution, which it is supposed to protect, and has held firm to its position that it is the highest level of the judiciary. The parliaments have also said that this problem is due to the requirements of the Constitution.