The Constitutional Court did not accept the mob “citizens” petition to overthrow the ruling.
On December 6, the reporter reported that Office of the Constitutional Court Publication of an order in which Mr. Sonthiya Sawasdee, a former member of the Palang Pracharat Party, filed a request for the Constitutional Court to consider the decision under Article 49 of the Constitution to examine the group assembly. Congregation for students, students and youth liberation (Free –YOUTH) crowd organized a speech. Without notifying the assembly accordingly Public Assembly Act 2015, and there is a call for the government to dissolve a new election Amend the constitution Stop threatening people’s freedoms and protesting against the monarchy
The petitioner has submitted a petition directly to the Constitutional Court to request a decision under Article 49 of the Constitution, ordering the group of students and youth citizens to liberate (Free -YOUTH) and other groups in the provinces. Stop protests including temporary protection measures No assembly shall be held until the Constitutional Court makes a decision.
The Constitutional Court considered the petition and agreed that The facts are not enough for the petitioner to amend the petition.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an amendment on 28 September 2020, identifying the person who acted according to the claimant, namely Mr. Prit Chivarak, Ms. Panasaya Sitthichirawattanakul, Mr. Anon Nampha and Mr. Panupong Chadnok, as well as citing additional facts about the organization of the speech rally on 19-20 September 2020 at Sanam Luang.
The issue that the Constitutional Court has to consider initially that The petitioner’s petition and additional petition must be in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution, whether the Constitutional Court will accept the decision or not. Which has no King as Head of State. ”Paragraph two stipulates that“ Anyone knows that an act under paragraph one Shall have the right to petition the Attorney General To request the Constitutional Court to decide the termination of such act “and paragraph three states” In the event that the Attorney General There is an order not to be processed as requested. Or fail to proceed within 15 days from the date of receiving the request The petitioner may submit a petition directly to the Constitutional Court. “
The Constitutional Court Considered and saw that Despite the additional petitions and requests, the petitioner identified the person who organized the rally on July 19, 2020, but the action was not added. With relevant facts and circumstances Therefore, the request and the additional request of the petitioner are incomplete, unclear and incomprehensible according to Act on Procedures of the Constitutional Court, B.E. 2561 (2018), Section 42, paragraph one
In addition, when the Constitutional Court orders the petitioner to amend the petition to complete Act on Procedures of the Constitutional Court 2018, Section 53, paragraph one
The petitioner did not make amendments to the Constitutional Court orders. It is a must. The Constitutional Court Procedure 2018, Section 53, paragraph two, therefore issued an order not to accept the petition for the act of organizing a speech on 19 July 2020 for decision.
In the case of the petitioner claims that The group organized a speech on 10 August 2020, 19-20 September 2020, without the fact that the petitioner filed a petition to the Attorney General. In the event that the rules and conditions of the Constitution, Section 49, paragraph two are not required, there is an order not to accept the petition in this part for consideration. Relying on the reasons mentioned above Therefore ordered not to accept the request for consideration And when there is an order not accepting the request for consideration Any other request will be lost.
