'No public route' to change Article 112

With the Yingluck government and the House of Representatives baulking at sponsoring an Article 112 amendment bill, advocates of changes to what is known as the lese-majeste law have pinned their hopes on the possibility of getting at least 10,000 people to propose a bill.

The signature campaign, however, ran into a legal stumbling block when experts pointed out that the current charter does not allow people to co-sponsor changes that could affect the monarchy. 

The Constitution does not sanction the signature campaign to amend the lese-majeste law, Siam University’s law dean Jade Dhonavanik insisted yesterday. “I believe Article 112, unlike other defamation provisions in the Criminal Code, was designed to shield the head of state, hence it falls under Chapter 2 of the Constitution pertaining to the monarchy,” he said.

Under the charter provisions, people’s legislative drafts are allowed in regard to laws pertaining to rights and liberties (Chapter 3 of the charter) and state policies (Chapter 5), he said, arguing that Chapter 2 is off limits.

He said the campaign to amend Article 112 via a people’s draft could not be debated due to the lack of a constitutional sanction, regardless of the campaign to solicit the support of 10,000 voters.

He further noted that the signature campaign was meant to sponsor a people’s draft on a new piece of legislation, not an amendment to existing provisions. 

Chalerm backed the legal views against the signature campaign. Yesterday, he cancelled his plan to seek a Cabinet resolution against the lese-majeste law amendment, saying the government had already made a firm stand on the issue.

“I think it is no longer necessary to issue the Cabinet resolution, since all sides oppose the amendment,” he said.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had clearly stated that the government would not support the amendment, Chalerm said, urging media professionals to stop fuelling the debate on the issue.

Although the campaign to solicit 50,000 signatures supporting the people’s draft on the amendment might be ongoing, this was not an issue anymore because there was no legislative backing for passage, he said. 

He said he would not intervene in the red shirts’ efforts to spearhead the signature campaign to push for the amendment, arguing he had no mandate to stop any lawful activities. “I don’t condone the amendment, but have no authority to block the red shirts,” he said.

Anti-Article 112 campaigners still held out hope that their move would be considered constitutional as it was based on concerns over civil rights and liberty.

Yukti Mukdavichit, a key member of the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112 (CCAA), said he was certain the proposal to amend the law through the collection of at least 10,000 signatures is both constitutional and feasible. He said the Nitirat group of law lecturers who made the proposal that is now being championed by the CCAA have thoroughly considered aspects of the process. 

Yukti, a lecturer of anthropology at Thammasat University, said that if Chalerm sees the campaign as unconstitutional, he should go to the Constitution Court. “Let the court decide, otherwise anyone would think they can make that decision,” Yukti said. He said it’s not for Chalerm or any individual to decide whether the campaign is constitutional.