The Constitutional Court will rule on 10 September about referendum requirements for amending the constitution.

In a 22 July press release, the Court said that it has finished deliberating a petition submitted by parliament following a debate during a joint sitting of both houses over referendum requirements. Senator Premsak Piayura and Pheu Thai MP Wisut Chainarun proposed that parliament seek a Court clarification on the matter of whether parliamentarians can amend Section 256 of the Constitution directly or must wait until after a public referendum to do so.

Coalition leader Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition party, the People’s Party, earlier proposed changing Section 256 of the Constitution to ease restrictions on constitutional amendment, paving the way for the drafting of a new constitution by an elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA). Their proposal faced opposition from within the Senate and the Bhumjaithai Party, on the grounds that changes to the current charter can only be made after a referendum has been conducted.

Some parliamentarians argued that this would require at least 2 referendums. Pheu Thai MP Chaturon Chaisaeng hopes, however, that a Court ruling will make this unnecessary. Parliament voted on 17 March to petition the Court. A petition was submitted on 21 March.

In its press release, the Court said that expert witnesses had already provided legal briefs for deliberation. It has also reportedly already determined that the case concerned an interpretation of the law, gathered enough evidence to make a ruling, and scheduled oral discussion and a ruling vote for 10 September.

Chusak Sirinil, of the Prime Minister's Office, told Matichon Online that parliament could still move forward with the proposed Section 256 amendment bills while awaiting a Court ruling. He added, however, that the bills would need to be backed by a third of the senate to pass.

He expressed hope that a CDA could at least be established before a house dissolution so that it could begin work on a new charter which could be presented at a later stage.

He added, however, that parliament would not be able to continue debating the bills if the Court rules that an additional referendum was required. Instead, the process would have to start over, and a referendum would need to be held to ask the public whether the entire Constitution should be revised.