Bangkok: “Bowonsak” points out that the origin of the National Legislative Assembly can be indirectly linked to the people. Bowornsak reiterated that the new and old referendum laws will affect the timeline for only one month, saying that there is no need to worry about the People’s Draft Act, as it touches on sections 1 and 2, and that it should be reviewed in the third agenda. He pointed out that the origin of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is indirectly linked to the people.
According to Thai News Agency, Deputy Prime Minister for Legal Affairs, Bowornsak Uwanno, addressed concerns that a government’s incumbency in less than four months would impact the constitutional amendment timeline. He stated that this was unrelated and a matter for Parliament. However, if Parliament is dissolved beforehand, the constitution would be suspended. However, if the constitution is under consideration by a committee and there is a change of government, Parliament will proceed. However, if Parliament is dissolved, the matter is over. However, a new government, formed after the election, can request Parliament to consider it within 60 days. Regarding the new Referendum Organic Act, which has already been submitted for Royal endorsement, which will be 90 days on November 3, 2025, we cannot speculate on the date of its approval. It is a royal prerogative, so don’t be too quick to guess. He stated that using the 2021 Referendum Organic Act will speed up the timeline. However, using the new Referendum O
rganic Act will speed up the process. And if it comes down before November 3, the timeline changes, and the House of Representatives will have another month.
Mr. Bowornsak stated that constitutional amendments are not a matter of government support or disapproval. If one wishes to inquire about the political content, one should ask the political parties: the leader of the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), the Pheu Thai Party (PTP), the People’s Party (PPRP), the Senate. The government has one duty: once the draft constitutional amendment has passed parliament, the constitution and its organic laws require the government to seek a referendum to decide whether to approve or disapprove it. The first question is whether to approve or disapprove of the draft constitution; and the second question is whether to approve or disapprove of the format, procedures, and basic principles contained in the draft constitution. If the draft constitution is not finalized, the referendum remains the only question: whether to approve or disapprove of the draft constitution. The second question can only be asked once parliament has approved the constitution.
Regarding the situation where, after 90 days, there has been no royal endorsement of the new referendum organic law, Mr. Bowornsak stated that if there is no royal endorsement within 90 days, it is a matter for the parliament to convene in accordance with Section 146 of the Constitution. However, do not make assumptions like that; wait for the truth first. According to past statistics, most cases are passed by royal endorsement, except for technical difficulties such as wording errors.
Regarding the House’s approval of the People’s Democratic Reform Party’s constitutional amendment draft as the primary draft, Mr. Bowornsak stated that it would allow for amendments to Chapters 1 and 2. He stated that the draft passed by the House in the third reading would depend on the House’s approval. Chapters 1 and 2 are not important, as any amendments can be made by the third reading. Concerns about Chapters 1 and 2, which could violate the Constitutional Court’s ruling, depend on the final draft passed by the House in the third reading.
Regarding the case of a request to the Constitutional Court for interpretation, Mr. Bowornsak stated that if a request is made to the Constitutional Court and the matter is being considered, the content of the constitution cannot be used in the referendum on March 29th. Only one question can be asked: whether or not to approve the drafting of a new constitution.
In the case of the Constitutional Court’s ruling against direct public selection of members of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), what should be done to ensure public engagement? Mr. Bowornsak stated that there are several options. The court’s decision against direct elections could be used, but indirect elections could be used. Regarding criticism that the court has ruled beyond the required limit, the prohibition against the court ruling beyond the required limit applies to civil and criminal law, which are personal matters. However, it cannot be applied to the law, as public law protects public rights. This is normal practice, and not unusual.
If the MOA is changed, will it affect the timeline for amending the constitution? Mr. Bowornsak said that if the MOA is not changed, which is uncertain, because we don’t know all the political events, the media knows that politics change daily, not every month, but today is the same. There is no reason to change it.