A campaign has been launched in Myanmar demanding an end to the practice of the appointment of military officers as judicial officers to the court of Myanmar. This movement demands the end to militarisation of the legal system.
In Myanmar, four out of the seven Supreme Court judges are former military officers. Their names are as follows:
1. Htun Htun Oo, Chief Justice, former Lieutenant Colonel
2. Myint Han, Judge, former Lieutenant Colonel
3. Thar Htay, Judge, former Lieutenant Colonel
4. Aung Zaw Thein, Judge, former Lieutenant Colonel
In other courts also, there are large numbers of military officers sitting as judges.
The qualifications for the position of Chief Justice and the judges for the Supreme Court as laid down in the Constitution are as follows:
(a) not younger than 50 years and not older than 70 years;
(b) who has qualifications, with the exception of the age limit, prescribed in Section 120 for Pyithu Hluttaw representatives;
(c) whose qualifications does not breach the provisions under the Section 121 which disqualify him from standing for election as Pyithu Hluttaw representatives;
(d) (i) who has served as a Judge of the High Court of the Region or State for at least five years; or(ii) who has served as a Judicial Officer or a Law Officer at least 10 years not lower than that of the Region or State level; or(iii) who has practised as an Advocate for at least 20 years; or(iv) who is, in the opinion of the President, an eminent jurist;
(e) loyal to the Union and its citizens;
(f) who is not a member of a political party;
(g) who is not a Hluttaw representative.
For the independence of the judiciary to be established in Myanmar, one of the primary steps that needs to be taken is amendment to the constitution itself so that only a person with legal qualifications and experience in the practice of law should be appointed as a member of the Supreme Court or as judge in the other courts.
The yellow ribbon movement has been inspired by the black ribbon movement, which was initiated by health officers who opposed the transfer of military officers to the health department.
Myanmar militarisation started in 1962 and has continued ever since. Now the people have begun demanding the end to militarisation of their institutions. This is particularly important for the Judiciary which has to function as the separate branch within a democracy. The courts, so far, function in Myanmar as an arm of the administration and not as an independent branch.
The Supreme Court has power to issue the following writs:
(i) Writ of Habeas Corpus;
(ii) Writ of Mandamus;
(iii) Writ of Prohibition;
(iv) Writ of Quo Warranto;
(v) Writ of Certiorari.
Implied in the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is the power of the court to challenge and even to quash (undo) an administrative decision made by the government. Despite the power available to the Supreme Court, the judges refuse to make any such decision that challenges the administrative authorities. The proper exercise of writ jurisdiction requires establishment of an independent judicial system. For this purpose, the practice of appointing military officers to judicial positions must stop.
The Asian Human Rights Commission requests international human rights organizations to take an active part in supporting the yellow ribbon moment.
