Constitution Court may be called for ruling on House
The Constitution Court may have to intervene and rule on whether the new House of Representatives can convene if the by-elections fail to fill all 500 seats within the required 30 days, caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday.
"There are two separate contentious issues - the 30-day deadline and the quorum of 500 MPs - for the court to determine if and when the House can convene its first session," he said. Wissanu said the deadline will expire on May 1 and many legal pundits have argued that the House has to convene its first session regardless of the number of unfilled seats. But in his personal opinion, he considers it more important to achieve the 500-seat quorum than observe the deadline, he said. Wissanu dismissed speculation that his caretaker government was poised to seek a royal decree to convene the lower chamber. "The convening of the House's first session involves His Majesty the King presiding over the ceremony, and this government will not act in haste before all pertinent legal issues are resolved," he said. The Election Commission (EC), the House Secretariat and the government have been empowered to initiate the judicial review depending on each stage of the electoral process, he said. Should the EC fail to fill the House seats after the repeat vote on Sunday, it may directly petition the court, he said. If the EC decided not to get involved in the litigation, then the House Secretariat can initiate the judicial review, he said. In case the two relevant agencies opt for staying on the sidelines, the government will have to petition the court, he added. Echoing Wissanu, Thai Rak Thai Party deputy leader Pongthep Thepkanchana said the judicial review was a most appropriate way to settle matters relating to the convening of the House. If the repeat vote failed to fill every House seat, then the court could order additional rounds of voting until the quorum is achieved, he said. He speculated the court might opt to exercise leeway in interpreting the quorum if there was no way to fill all 500 seats. For the 100 party-list seats allocated under proportional votes, it was clear the ruling party had only 99 candidates. The Constitution and relevant electoral provisions did not specify a vote on additional party lists and the court might have to establish a precedent in order to break the deadlock, Pongthep said.
|
