Democrats back public right to petition court

Meanwhile, the Pheu Thai Party’s deputy spokesman said the ruling party would inform the government whips of its decision that during Parliament’s deliberation on the charter amendment from tomorrow to Wednesday, senators should be allocated eight hours of debate, government MPs 15 hours and the opposition 11 hours.

In regard to the government’s proposal to amend Article 237 by abolishing party dissolution as a punishment in cases where executive members commit electoral offences, the Democrats will need to see what other punishments could be used instead, Narit said. The party may support punishment of individual party executives who commit electoral offences, and scrapping political bans for entire executive boards, the MP added. 

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut said that while the opposition believes amending the Constitution article by article could be done, it feared the government may seek to amend Article 68 of the Constitution to pave the way for a wholesale rewrite. 

Meanwhile, Assumption University lecturer Pornsan Liangbunlertchai said that to prevent political conflicts, the government should have Foreign Ministry officials take part in the amendment of article 50 and 190 since they involve the country’s sovereignty.

He said other points relating to charter amendment that could bring about political conflict include how senators are elected; the bid to abolish party dissolution as a punishment; and reducing the power of the Constitution Court. “These are important mechanisms that the conservative group have established in the ruling system to check the power of politicians,” he said.

He personally approved of the government’s move to amend Article 68 to let public prosecutors screen complaints before they are forwarded to the Constitution Court.

“If the Constitution Court does not have a check or screening system, the public one day may question its ruling. If society does not respect the court’s decision, the country will not be able to move forward,” he said.

Former House speaker Bhokin Palakula voiced concern that political complications could arise if the Constitution Court agrees to make a ruling on a complaint filed by a group of 40 senators questioning the constitutionality of the move to amend Article 68. He said Parliament has a duty to legislate and amend the law. “We cannot use the court verdict [as] a law,” he said.