The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition regarding the barcode on the election ballot.

The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed two petitions: one concerning the barcode on election ballots and the other alleging that Nattapong Ruangpanyawut and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul used their rights or freedoms to overthrow the government, citing insufficient evidence.

Date 1 July 2569 The Constitutional Court unanimously resolved to dismiss the petition filed by Ms. Natthida Nikrothangkoon, who requested the court to consider and rule on the matter under Article 213 of the Constitution. It is claimed that the actions of the Election Commission and the Office of the Election Commission in determining the format and printing of barcodes on the ballot papers for the proportional representation of members of the House of Representatives are not in accordance with the purpose for which the budget allocation was requested, which only specified the use of QR codes. And from complaints from other people, it is seen that the election is not secret, violates the right to vote, and is contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution, Section 3, Section 25 and Section 41 (3).

The Constitutional Court, after deliberation, found that the facts presented in the petition and supporting documents did not describe how Ms. Natthida's rights or freedoms were directly violated or how she suffered hardship or damage from the Election Commission's actions. It was merely an expression of opinion.

Furthermore, Ms. Natthida did not provide any reasons to support her argument that the election was not conducted secretly. Therefore, the case does not comply with the criteria, methods, and conditions stipulated in Section 46, paragraphs one and two, of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018). Consequently, the petitioner cannot file such petition under Section 213 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition against Nattapong, Piyabutr, and the Cabinet regarding allegations of overthrowing the government, citing insufficient evidence.

The Constitutional Court unanimously resolved to dismiss the petition filed by Ms. Natthida Nikrothangkoon, requesting the Constitutional Court to make a ruling under Article 49 of the Constitution. It is claimed that... The actions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in considering and approving the questions to be asked in the referendum on February 8, 2569, in drafting the new constitution, did not follow the legal procedures as per the Constitutional Court's ruling 18/2564 regarding the referendum.

Furthermore, based on observations made in various media outlets, Mr. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut and Mr. Piyabutr Saengkanokkul have expressed opinions regarding the Privy Council. The actions of these three respondents constitute the use of their rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system of government with the King as head of state, as stipulated in Article 49 of the Constitution.

The petitioner filed a petition with the Attorney General, and the Attorney General issued a letter stating that the respondent's actions did not constitute the use of rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system with the King as head of state, as stipulated in Section 49, paragraph one, of the Constitution. Therefore, the Attorney General ordered that the request not be accepted.

The Constitutional Court, after deliberation, found that the facts presented in the petition and supporting documents indicate that for any person to exercise their rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system with the King as Head of State, as stipulated in Section 49, paragraph one of the Constitution, must be clearly and sufficiently supported by facts or evidence demonstrating an intention and purpose at a level that a reasonable person could foresee, likely resulting in the overthrow of the democratic system with the King as Head of State.

Since the facts presented in the petition and supporting documents do not provide sufficient clear evidence to demonstrate that the Prime Minister, Mr. Nattapong, and Mr. Piyabutr acted in a manner that exercised their rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system with the King as head of state, as stipulated in Section 49, paragraph one of the Constitution, the case does not meet the criteria and procedures under Section 49 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitutional Court unanimously resolved to dismiss the petition.

Read all economic news throughout Thailand here.