The party also urged Parliament to proceed with the final passage of the bill despite the court’s injunction.
“The Constitution Court has no jurisdiction to act beyond the mandate sanctioned by the Constitution,” the ruling party said in its statement.
The party’s statement argued that the high court had erred in citing Article 68 of the Constitution in ordering the postponement of the vote.
Under Article 68, the high court could intervene only after the Office of the Attorney General had found cause to suspect the unconstitutionality of the bill and petitioned for a judicial review.
According to the statement, the high court had no mandate to accept the complaints filed by individuals or organisations, which cannot set organic laws.
Last Friday, the high court cited five complaints as grounds for launching the judicial inquiry into the legality of the bill.
The nine-judge panel ruled that that the injunction was justified in light of the urgency, as Parliament was poised to vote on the final passage of the bill.
If the bill were designed to change the democratic rule with the King as head of state as feared, it would be too late to intervene after the passage of the bill, court president Wasan Soypisudh said.
The ruling party countered that the high court had no jurisdiction to intervene in the legislature. It said the injunction was wrongful and unenforceable.
The high court should reflect on its performance and Parliament should, meanwhile, proceed to enact the bill as planned, it said.