Drafts must first get okay from Constitution Court: Democrats

However, some lawmakers said they would prefer it if the decision was left up to Parliament. 

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva proposed that the draft first be considered by the Constitution Court, then have the Parliament see if it needs any modifications before it is sent for a national referendum. 

“The Constitution Court was established specifically to rule on problems related to the Constitution,” Abhisit said. “I don’t see any reason to change this principle or say that it should not be in the Constitution Court’s authority to consider if the charter draft goes beyond limitations.” 

Abhisit was referring to the normal procedure for passing organic laws that automatically go to the Constitution Court for consideration after being drafted. He added that parliamentary debate on the draft will also educate public before they vote in the national referendum. 

Parliament was discussing the government’s draft of Article 291/13, which says that if the Parliament president believes the draft does not contain any issues prohibited in previous articles, he should send it to the Election Commission in seven days so it can hold a national referendum. The prohibited issues include changes to the country’s political system of constitutional monarchy, changes to its single-state status and changes to any clause contained in the chapter on the monarchy of the 2007 Constitution. If Parliament agrees that the draft violates any of these prohibitions, it must be dropped.

Democrat MP Wiratana Kalayasiri said: “I propose that the jurisdiction [on whether the draft contains any prohibited clauses] be changed from just the Parliament president – no matter if it’s Mr A, Mr B or Mr Somsak – to the Parliament’s 650 members.”

The House speaker is also Parliament president. 

House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont told the meeting that he would have the secretary-general of the House of Representatives set up a committee to consider the issue.

“If Parliament makes a decision on this draft, I will have the House secretary-general set up a panel or a working group to consider this on my behalf and relieve you [parliamentarians],” he said. 

The other issues raised by the Democrats yesterday was the timeframe of the process before and after the national referendum. Abhisit said the EC should be given a minimum of 60 days, instead of 45 days as proposed in the draft, before it holds a referendum. 

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmeechai, chairman of the ad hoc committee on charter amendment, said the question as to whether the draft violates the three prohibited issues should not be too complicated for the Parliament president to consider. Samart also helped draft the 1997 Constitution.

“If the Parliament president thinks the draft violates the prohibition, then he has the right to bring the issue up in Parliament,” he said, adding that the lawmakers can then consider the draft before it is passed on for referendum.

He said the 60-day maximum timeframe for the referendum was suitable, as the people would already be closely following the process of charter drafting via the media.