Court asked to weigh constitutionality of lese majeste law

Karom Polpornklang and Suwit Thongnuan argued that the penalty under lese majeste law is too harsh and undemocratic, as it is more severe than that for other civil defamation cases. With a maximum imprisonment term of 15 years under the lese majeste law, compared to three years for an ordinary defamation case, the current law is tantamount to placing the monarchy “above the constitution”, the lawyers argued.

The lawyers urged in their petition letter that Thailand needs to bring itself in line with international standards, “otherwise [Thailand] will not be accepted among civilised nations, which would be detrimental…to the Thai justice system.”

“We’re doing this not just for Somyos but for others,” Karom told reporters.

If the Constitution Court accepted the petition, it might take up to a year for a ruling and Somyos could end up in jail longer, as he has already been denied bail seven times and spent nearly a year under detention.

Somyos told The Nation yesterday that he has decided the petition is worth trying.

“It’s for posterity. I’m just a scapegoat,” said Somyos.

The trial yesterday heard from Tongthong Chandarangsu, permanent secretary to the PM’s Office Ministry and a noted expert on royal affairs, testifying as a prosecution witness.

Tongthong told the court he thinks penalties under the current lese majeste law are too “severe and not proportionate” to the crime. Tongthong also pointed out that lese majeste penalties under an absolute monarchy were less severe than now, under a constitutional monarchy.

“The issue is the [severity of the] penalty, whether it’s proportionate or not and how these cases processed. I offered my opinion at a public symposium that not just anyone should be able to file [lese majeste] charges, but they should also not be filed by any organisation under the Royal Household either. This would ensure that the principle of lese majeste law is not abused,” Tongthong told the court.

Tongthong testified he believed the two articles in Voice of Taksin magazine, written under the pen name Jit Polachan, made negative references to the Chakri Dynasty, though he was not sure they could be interpreted as directly referring to HM the King.

Another prosecution witness, Bovorn Yasinthorn, leader of the Citizens Network to Protect the Monarchy, testified however that the two articles constituted an attack and defamation of HM the King.