Parliament voted on Monday (17 March) to petition the Constitutional Court to rule whether it can amend Section 256 of the Constitution or if it has to conduct a referendum first, which would further delay the process of amending the Constitution

The motion was filed by Senator Premsak Piayura. Pheu Thai MP Wisut Chainarun also filed a similar motion after parliament had to adjourn the 13-14 February joint sitting of MPs and senators planning to debate two bills proposing amendments to the Constitutions due to a lack of quorum.

Pheu Thai and the main opposition People’s Party previously proposed to amend Section 256 of the Constitution with the aim of easing restrictions on constitutional amendments and pave the way towards drafting a new Constitution by an elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly. Their proposals faced opposition from senators, as well as the Bhumjaithai Party, which said that debating the bills would go against a Constitutional Court ruling that a referendum needs to be conducted before the Constitution can be amended.

On Monday (17 March), a joint sitting of 572 MPs and senators voted 303 to 151, with 124 abstentions, to file a petition with the Constitutional Court seeking a ruling on whether a referendum is needed before parliament can amend Section 256.

Wisut said during the debate that a Constitutional Court ruling is needed because parliament could not agree on whether it could amend the Constitution and so could not proceed. One side believes that it could not amend the Constitution without conducting a referendum first, while another believes that it can because the proposed amendments only concern the guidelines for how a new Constitution is to be written and so there is no need to conduct a referendum first.  

Senator Tewarit Maneechai noted, however, that the Constitutional Court’s ruling in 2021 is clear that only two referendums are needed and only if parliament wants to amend the Constitution. He also said that, if parliament decides to seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court, the balance of power between political institutions would be disrupted by parliament always having to seek a Constitutional Court ruling before doing anything.

Meanwhile, People’s Party MP Parit Wacharasindhu noted that 5 Constitutional Court judges wrote in their personal rulings that only two referendums are needed. Only one judge wrote that three referendums are needed, and one other said that writing a new Constitution is not allowed at all. The Constitutional Court Office’s own infographic on the ruling also did not say that a referendum is needed before amending Section 256, while the Constitutional Court President did not indicate during his informal discussion with Parit that three referendums are needed.

Pheu Thai MP Chaturon Chaisaeng, on the other hand, said that a petition should be filed with the Constitutional Court so that there would not be a cause for concern, since many factions refused to participate in the 13-14 February debate because they were concerned about amending the Constitution without conducting a referendum. He believes that getting a ruling from the Court would reduce obstacles and increase the possibility of being able to write a new Constitution.

The legal watchdog NGO iLaw, which has been campaigning for a new Constitution, said following the vote that the decision to petition the Court is an attempt to “stall” the process of writing a new Constitution. It noted that the motions proposed by Premsak and Wisut were similar to a motion Pheu Thai MP Chousak Sirinil proposed in 2023, which resulted in a petition later rejected by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that its previous ruling states clearly that a referendum must be conducted once before the Constitution is amended and again after the new draft is completed.

No matter how the Court rules, iLaw said, the process of amending the Constitution will be delayed. If the Court rejects the petition, parliament would not be able to debate the two bills amending Section 256 during this session, which ends on 11 April. If it accepts the petition and rules that parliament could amend Section 256 before conducting a referendum, it will still delay the process since it is unlikely for the Court to issue a ruling before 11 April. And if the Court rules that three referendums are needed, it would be unlikely that the Constitution can be amended within the current government’s term.