The Constitutional Court has ruled against granting a temporary injunction regarding the barcode ballot issue, stating that there is no cause for damage.
The Constitutional Court has ruled against granting a temporary injunction regarding the barcode ballot issue, stating that there is no evidence to prevent imminent damage or violence.
On April 1, 2569, the Constitutional Court convened to deliberate on a case in which the Ombudsman, as the petitioner, requested the Constitutional Court to consider and rule on the matter pursuant to Article 213 of the Constitution. The petitioner claimed to have received 21 complaints and requested the Court to consider submitting petitions, along with its opinion, to the Constitutional Court as per Article 213 of the Constitution.
In the case of the Election Commission (EC) and its committee, which conducted the general election for members of the House of Representatives (MPs) on February 8, 69, by setting the format and printing ballot papers that used barcodes and QR codes, which can be believed to be traceable and verifiable, the identity of voters and the results of voting were not secret, this action is contrary to or in conflict with the Constitution, Section 4, Section 25, Section 34, Section 50 (7), Section 83 paragraph two, Section 85, Section 95 and Section 224.
Subsequently, Mr. Patarapong Supakorn, or Complainant No. 18 to the Ombudsman, filed a petition dated March 18, 69, requesting the Constitutional Court to prescribe temporary measures or methods before making a ruling, specifically to halt or postpone the first session of the House of Representatives.
The Constitutional Court, after deliberation, determined that Mr. Phatarapong was not the petitioner in this case. The petition constituted an amendment to the Ombudsman's petition, as stipulated in Section 55 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018), which can only be done by the petitioner. The Constitutional Court unanimously resolved to dismiss the petition.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court considered that there was no cause to prevent imminent damage or violence, and therefore it was not a case where the Constitutional Court could prescribe any temporary measures or methods before making a ruling, in accordance with Section 71 of the Organic Act on the Procedure of the Constitutional Court B.E. 2561 (2018).
Read related news
