Court delivers compromise decision on charter change
Play
Thailand's Constitution Court yesterday delivered what could be seen as a "compromise" verdict on the five petitions against the charter-amendment bill now pending in Parliament.
For the government, the verdict is, however, a setback, as the ongoing charter change process will be disrupted and may have to start anew.
On its own jurisdiction, the court ruled that it has the authority, under the Constitution, to accept the petitions directly from those who oppose the charter-change bid.
The vote was seven to one on this point.
Second, the court ruled that a wholesale rewrite of the 2007 Constitution is unconstitutional. As a result, only amendments to some of the articles are legal.
The court said that the authorities must hold a national referendum if there is going to be a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution via the set-up of a Charter Drafting Assembly.
The vote was eight to zero on this point.
Third, the court ruled that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude at this stage that the charter-change bill would overthrow the constitutional monarchy system, as claimed by the petitioners.
The vote was eight to zero on this point.
Fourth, there is no legal basis to disband the ruling Pheu Thai Party and other government coalition parties due to their support for the charter-change bill.
The vote was also eight to zero on this point.
The eight-member panel of judges in charge of this case apparently voted almost unanimously on all the four key points.
Earlier, there were critics who argued that the court has no jurisdiction on this issue, as Parliament is fully empowered to amend the Constitution.
The court was also criticised for accepting petitions directly from the public to review the charter-change process, instead of having the Office of the Attorney-General screen the petitions first.
Overall, the court’s verdict means that the charter-change bill now pending in Parliament will have to be dropped, as it sought to rewrite the entire Constitution.
The bill was awaiting its final reading and vote prior to the court’s acceptance of petitions against the bill.
Parliament is currently in recess but will re-convene on August 1.
Basically, the Constitution Court has exercised its authority in a relatively balanced manner in this case.
As one of the countries using the “civil law” as its framework, Thailand’s Constitution Court is empowered to interpret the wording of the Constitution, as seen in the above verdict.
This judicial review serves as an important check-and-balance mechanism in a democracy in which the majority rules.
This system is similar to the US or the German system, in which the former has the Supreme Court as the final arbitrater on constitutional issues, while the latter also has a Constitution Court similar to the one in Thailand.
This “civil law” system is unlike the “common law” system used in the UK, for example.
As a result, Pheu Thai and other government members should now seek to hold a separate national referendum if they propose to rewrite the entire Constitution by establishing a Charter Drafting Assembly.
Such a proposed wholesale rewrite should not, however, be seen as part of the mandate that the Pheu Thai Party and other government parties won in the last general election.
