Bangkok: "Wan Nor" addresses three key aspects in adherence to the Constitutional Court's ruling on March 29, 2024, emphasizing the procedural steps for constitutional amendments and the necessity of a referendum.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Wan Muhammad Noor Matha, President of the National Assembly, elaborated on the inclusion of the draft amendment to the constitution during a joint meeting of the National Assembly. The draft follows the Constitutional Court's last ruling, which outlines three fundamental principles: the National Assembly's authority to amend the constitution, its power to set the amendment agenda, and the requirement of a referendum if amendments are pursued. Wan Muhammad highlighted that the phrase 'if the National Assembly must' implies prior consideration of Section 256, encompassing readings 1, 2, and 3. This phrase reflects the demand for amendments from political parties or the public.
Wan Muhammad further explained the procedural nuances, stating that a parliamentary vote is essential to determine the assembly's desire for amendments. He noted that proposing an amendment does not signify that the parliament desires it, referencing a 2021 Constitutional Court ruling necessitating a referendum. He clarified that if the parliament demonstrates its intent to amend the constitution by passing Section 256 in the second and third readings, a referendum must be sought before drafting a new constitution or electing a Constituent Assembly. The outcome of the referendum will determine whether a Constituent Assembly should be elected.
The Speaker of the House emphasized the importance of the referendum process, noting the financial implications and constitutional requirements. He remarked on the potential waste of resources if the referendum reveals that the public does not support the amendment, despite parliamentary interest. Wan Muhammad underscored that the legal team's decision aligns with the Constitutional Court's March 29, 2024, ruling, ensuring adherence to procedural and financial considerations.
Wan Muhammad concluded by questioning the validity of claiming parliamentary desire for amendments without a formal resolution, distinguishing between the desires of political parties, the public, and the parliament itself. He reiterated the necessity of a parliamentary resolution to move forward with constitutional amendments.