A network of civil society organizations has filed a complaint against 5 Constitutional Court judges, seeking an investigation into their unsolicited statement prohibiting the direct election of a Constituent Assembly in the new constitutional drafting process.

The complaint stems from the Court’s brief ruling on 10 September regarding parliament’s authority in drafting a new constitution, since there had been controversy over how many referendums must be held in this process.

To resolve the dispute, Parliament voted on 17 March to petition the Constitutional Court to rule on Parliament’s authority regarding constitutional amendments.

The Constitutional Court ruled 6-1 in favour of three referendums. The first referendum will ask the public whether a new constitution should be drafted. The second will ask about the drafting method and key content of the new constitution, and the last involves public approval of the Constitution once drafted, but the first and second can be combined into one referendum.

However, in addition to that matter, the Court also unexpectedly ruled that “parliament will not allow the people to directly elect a Constituent Assembly,” sparking confusion among the public for its unsolicited statement.

The Court was later urged to release its full ruling to show the legal grounds for prohibiting the direct election of a Constituent Assembly. The full ruling was released on Tuesday (7 October), but the reason for prohibiting a direct election was still not included.

The People’s Constitutional Drafting Group, a network of civil society organizations campaigning for a new constitution, stated that the Court had exercised its authority beyond its mandate and undermined democracy.

According to iLaw, the network lodged a complaint with the National Anti-Corruption Commission on Wednesday (8 October), seeking an investigation into the five Constitutional Court judges who had signed the ruling as to whether the unsolicited prohibition against public participation in the constitutional amendment process constituted breach of the Constitution.

The network observed that the Court had deliberately created a stumbling block for the constitutional amendment. The network asserted that filing a complaint seeking an investigation of the Court judges was a right guaranteed in the Constitution.