THE Pheu Thai Party yesterday filed a petition with the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman asking for a ruling on the constitutionality of the junta order on the political parties organic law.

The Democrat Party also plans to file a petition next week with the Ombudsman and is currently working on a draft, the party’s legal expert Virat Kalayasiri said.

Both parties were challenging the junta order that set a new timetable for political parties and administrative procedures to prepare themselves ahead of the next election.

The organic law on political parties specified 60 to 180-day deadlines for parties to complete administrative affairs, such as updating their membership registration records and setting up provincial branches. But because the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) refused to lift its ban on politics, parties claimed they had been unable to begin work.

Deadlines had almost expired when the junta issued its controversial order. 

Aside from laying out the new timetables for the parties, it also required members to reconfirm their membership with parties as well as submit papers verifying their qualifications.

In a press conference yesterday, Phumtham Wechayachai, Pheu Thai’s acting secretary-general, read a statement arguing that the order had constitutional issues and alleging it infringed on the political rights and freedom of party members.

First, the order issued by NCPO chief Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha using his absolute powers under Article 44 failed to meet conditions set in the interim charter and was therefore unconstitutional, the Pheu Thai statement said.

Second, the order requiring members to confirm their membership was equivalent to nullifying all of the current membership, affecting their rights, it said.

As the confirmation of membership required a number of official documents, which had to be sought from at least 14 state bureaux, it added a burden for party members and limited rights and freedom, Pheu Thai said.

The fact that new members did not have to undergo the same process meant the order violated equal protections specified by the new Constitution, it added.

Phumtham said the petition would be filed in the name of the party with both the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman. Pheu Thai members would also individually petition the Constitutional Court for infringements of political rights, he added. 

Pheu Thai core leader Noppadol Patama criticised the NCPO for refusing to lift the political ban and instead issuing an order that had “only led to more problems”.

The former foreign minister said the NCPO’s stated justification for maintaining the ban – that there was still a risk of social unrest – was baseless. Most parties were not satisfied with the NCPO’s solution and wanted to seek a Constitutional Court decision on the matter, he added.

Parties should be allowed to work, visit voters to understand their needs and come up with policies addressing those needs, Noppadol said, arguing that the political ban should be lifted.

Pheu Thai legal expert Chusak Sirinin admitted that if the Constitutional Court ruled the order was legitimate, it would still be very challenging for parties to comply because the timeframe imposed was limited for updating registrations, collecting membership fees and setting up new branches.

The order should be revoked, he said, adding that the party was determined to face up to hardship.

In a related development, Democrat Party deputy spokesman Rames Rattanachaweng said the party would not directly petition the Constitutional Court because the Constitution was clear about filing complaints with the Ombudsman.

Ultimately the Democrat petition would still reach the Constitutional Court, he said.

Key arguments against junta move

Pheu Thai Party’s two arguments about the unconstitutionality of the NCPO’s chief’s order

1. Procedural aspect: The exercise of Article 44 (secured under the new charter’s Article 265) to issue the order did not meet conditions set by the interim charter, because:

– The organic law on political parties had undergone a legislative process as prescribed by the Constitution. The junta order to overturn it thus overruled the constitutional legislation.

– The NCPO has no authority above the Constitution.

2. Aspects concerning content: The NCPO chief’s order goes against the Constitution, because:

– Legislation of organic laws falls under the authority of parliament as prescribed by the Constitution. The exercise of the Article 44 is thus an act without authorisation by the charter.

– The order, which could result in cancellation of membership of party members, is a limitation of rights and its retroactive effect is against the rule of law.

– Requiring members to confirm their membership and show their qualification gives them a burden and is a limitation of rights.

– New members would not have to go through the same process. This is against the [concept of] equality protected by the Constitution.

Abhisit said the allegations were a political bullying tactic, and those who made claims against him should be held responsible for their actions.

The NACC, he said, dismissed his complaint when it was first heard but now that the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter, the agency should be in a position to review the complaint again.

Abhisit said those in power should not abuse it for political gains but wield it with fairness. This, he said, could help improve politics and the country’s democracy. The Supreme Court ruled against the former defence minister’s order to discharge Abhisit from the Army. The Pheu Thai Party’s ACM Sukumpol had signed the order in 2012 dismissing Abhisit from the Army, but the court revoked the order saying it was unlawful.

Abhisit was not serving in the Army at the time; in fact he had not been a serving officer since leaving the Army 23 years ago. The order, with its retroactive effect, was therefore unlawful and deemed to be a violation of Abhisit’s rights, his lawyer said yesterday.

Some Democrat party members claimed that it was part of a plot to keep Abhisit out of politics.

Taweesak Suthakavatin, one of the members, said the group would file the petition on behalf of the group, not the NLA. They would like to gain clarity on the issue so that the work of the National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) would not be problematic in the future.

However, it’s up to the Court to deliberate and rule on the case, he said.

The NACC law, which was recently passed by the NLA, is controversial because it allows current NACC commissioners to remain in office even though some of them have qualifications that are prohibited under the new charter.

The Constitution Drafting Commission, which drafted the original bill that was amended by the NLA, earlier voiced concern on the issue, saying waiving the prohibition is equivalent to waiving the charter.

“I come here only as a brother to you. I don’t come here for political purposes,” Prayut said to local residents. “I just want to meet you, who are like family me to me, as well as all of my deputies and ministers.”

The one-day trip to the Northern province was Prayut’s first field visit in 2018. Last year, he made several visits to local areas, where approvals for multi-billion-baht development projects were made during mobile Cabinet meetings.

Prayut has insisted that it is a method to keep in touch with people and local authorities. However, critics said that Prayut could be using the visits to gain the upper hand in politics while the ruling junta is still imposing a ban on other political parties.

In Mae Hong Son, Prayut witnessed a ceremony granting land plots to 120 villagers before visiting development projects around the Pai river basin under the royal initiatives of the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Prayut also visited a community operating under the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy and then went to a Pracharat-themed market, where he enjoyed dancing with folk dancers.

The committee is also considering whether to change the process from a cross-selection between groups to a selection from within groups.

The committee viewed that the change would not contradict the charter, as it does not specifically address that the selection must be a cross-selection.

Chief charter drafter Meechai Ruchupan said changes to the selection process for senators would prompt claims of conspiracy and fraud, thus contradicting the charter.

Srisuwn said this would be a way to prove or disprove Prawit’s claims that the expensive watches he has been wearing belong to these friends.

On Tuesday, General Prawit pledged to resign if he was found guilty, but insisted that the luxury watches he has worn on various occasions were borrowed from his friends and had already been returned to them.

However, Srisuwan said all of these friends must be called on to prove Prawit’s claims. If they are the true owners, they should be able to wear the watches perfectly.

Srisuwan said Prawit’s latest claim is mere nonsense. Some of the watches, he said, are limited editions, meaning they are made to order and have numbers showing who ordered them.

The scandal arose after Prawit was seen wearing a very expensive Richard Mille watch during a photo session with the new Cabinet

Facebook page CSI LA has reviewed media photos of Prawit and, as of Wednesday, it was estimated that he has worn 24 luxury watches. The total price, based on market value, stands at more than Bt30 million – far higher than Prawit’s estimated income during his past three years in office.

The 84-year-old scholar faced the charge after questioning the historical accuracy of the story of King Naresuan’s victorious elephant battle more than four centuries ago.

After investigations lasting more than three years, military prosecutors decided to drop the lawsuit because of insufficient evidence, according to a message on Sulak’s Facebook page and his lawyer.

Another charge against Sulak for allegedly breaking the Computer Crime Act in connection with the same incident was also dropped.

During an academic seminar on October 5, 2014, the scholar questioned the historical accuracy of conventional depictions of the elephant battle.

The duel, in which the Siamese King Naresuan is said have been victorious over Burmese Crown Prince Mingyi Swa more than 400 years ago, is often regarded in mainstream Thai historical accounts as a momentous victory that freed Ayutthaya from Burmese rule.

The lese majeste law, according to Article 112 of the Penal Code, reads: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years.”

Party members announced the move at a press conference earlier Wednesday.

They slammed the use of the Article 44 of the 2014 interim charter to reschedule a timetable for parties to begin preparing for the next election.

They said use of the article contravened criteria set out in the charter and was thus unconstitutional.

They also criticised a junta order requiring party members to confirm their membership, saying it was an infringement of both the parties’ and members’ rights.

It was equivalent to nullifying all memberships, which affected the rights and freedoms of individuals, the party argued.

“They have called for the revocation of some announcements and laws that might be in favour of any particular side,” Prayut said at his weekly press briefing.

“We have to see who is advantaged and disadvantaged by each of the laws,” he added.

The PM was speaking a day after civil-society groups launched a campaign to collect at least 10,000 signatures to file a petition for a bill to revoke 35 of the National Council for Peace and Order’s (NCPO) laws, some of which were issued by the absolute Article 44 power granted to the head of the NCPO, which is Prayut.

The groups, led by the Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), said they aimed to submit the petition to the post-election Lower House as they “have no faith” in the junta-appointed parliamentary system.

The civil-society groups’ move came shortly after the junta government said recently that laws enacted under the NCPO’s special sweeping power would eventually come to an end once the NCPO was defunct after the general election.

Prayut earlier promised that a national poll would be held in November this year, but political parties are still frozen by NCPO order 3/2015 that prohibits a political gathering of five or more people.

Last month’s NCPO order 53/2017, which amends the Political Party Act, is also much opposed by parties for its requirements deemed to require the resetting of their memberships, which they argue would cut their registered supporter base.

Yingcheep Atchanont, iLaw project manager, said on Tuesday that he had little hope that the NCPO would revoke its laws while it was still in power.

“They always cite so-called irregular situations when exercising such absolute power,” he said. “They would like to convey the need to get such situations under control.”

Yingcheep added that NCPO order 3/2015, along with 13/2016 – which grants policing power to military officers to perform the arbitrary detention of civilians – presented the greatest concern to civil-society groups.

“‘Political gathering’ has a broad range of meanings. By prohibiting it so, it also put fear into the civil-society movement,” he explained. “This threatens us when we wish to voice [concerns] to the authorities.”

The Pheu Thai Party’s ACM Sukumpol Suwanatat had signed an order in 2012 to dismiss Abhisit from the Army, but Bundit – citing the court’s ruling – said the order was not lawful.

The court also revoked the order, he added.

Bundit said Abhisit was not serving in the Army or leaving his duty, as he had not been a serving officer since leaving the Army 23 years ago.

The order, with its retroactive effect, was therefore unlawful and deemed to be a violation of Abhisit’s rights, the lawyer stressed, adding that the former prime minister had the right to fight the matter in the courts to protect his rights.

Bundit also pointed out that Abhisit could use the Supreme Court’s ruling to lodge a complaint against Sukumpol with the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The Democrat will hold a press conference on the matter tomorrow.