Court insists on hearing charter case

In a statement, the court said the decision by the Office of the Attorney-General on Thursday not to forward to the court similar petitions filed earlier with the agency would not affect the court’s review of the case.

“Public prosecutors have a different duty from that of the court. Their decision does not affect the court’s power in accepting for judicial review the petitions filed by eligible complainants,” the court said in its statement.

The court also maintained its stance that when learning about a plot to overthrow the country’s democratic regime, Thai people have the constitutional right to petition both the attorney-general and the court – and not solely the former, as had been suggested by some law experts.

“In Article 68 of the Constitution, the part that says ‘and submit a motion to the Constitution Court’ is meant for the complainant, and not the attorney-general,” the court’s statement said. It added that the attorney-general had the power to decide whether to forward such petitions to the court.

Article 68 states, “No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as head of the state under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution. In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the prosecutor-general to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitution Court for ordering cessation of such acts. In the case where the Constitution Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act, the court may order the dissolution of such political party.”

On Thursday night, the Office of the Attorney-General called a press conference to announce that the agency found that the government-sponsored constitutional amendment bills were not aimed at overthrowing the country’s political system. However, its spokesman added that the agency’s decision would not interfere with the decisions by any other agencies or organisations.

Meanwhile, Chuchai Supawong, who was deputy chairman of the committee that drafted the current charter, said yesterday that the Constitution Court’s interpretation of Article 68 was in line with the spirit of the Constitution in guaranteeing ordinary people’s right to petition directly to the court when “all other means for the exercise thereof are exhausted”, as stated in Article 212. 

He said that in Article 68, the subject of the action to “submit a motion to the Constitution Court” is “the person knowing of such act”, and not “the prosecutor-general”.

In a related development, Verapat Pariyawong, who describes himself as an independent lawyer, yesterday urged Parliament and the Constitution Court to each “take a step backward” in their confrontation over the legal issues, in order to ease the tense situation and avoid a new coup.

He called on Parliament to postpone voting of the final reading of the constitutional amendment bill. He said parliamentarians should promise that they would add another clause to ensure that the writing of a new constitution would not result in reduced power for the Constitution Court or changes in the country’s political system or form of government, as had been feared by opponents of the charter-change bill.

Verapat, who holds a master’s degree in law from Harvard University, posted on his Facebook page an article headlined “Parliament and Court, Please Take One Step Back Each”.