iLaw, allies to petition against EC's stance on Article 61

The petition, led by iLaw’s director Jon Ungpakorn, will be lodged at the Supreme Administrative Court and will ask for a revocation of the EC’s announcement on regulations controlling the expression of opinions regarding the upcoming plebiscite. 

The petitioners say the announcement is unlawful, contains content that is in violation of democratic principles and international obligations that Thailand has agreed to. Most importantly, they claim, it impacts the very essence of freedom of expression under a democratic regime.

The EC’s announcement provides guidelines on what can and cannot be done in campaigns for the referendum on the draft charter. They include a ban on getting people to wear shirts, badges, pins, ribbons, flags or signs that might influence the vote or distribute the abovementioned items in a way that can be deemed as an attempt to incite violence. 

In early May, the group had filed a petition against the Article 61, which prohibits the spreading of false, rude, inciting or intimidating messages related to the referendum. The Constitutional Court later found the Article constitutional and said it did not infringe on freedom of expression as alleged. 

The full verdict was published on the court’s website on Monday, saying that freedom of expression was protected under the Referendum Law’s Article 7, but for the referendum to be carried out peacefully and fairly, Article 61 sets regulations that penalises anyone who incites trouble to cause disorder during voting.

The verdict also said that the Article’s second clause takes a clear stance against those who “instigate trouble in order to cause disorder in the voting”, as stated in the previous clause.

The verdict read that though such stipulation might be deemed broad and vague, it was legally feasible.