Election Commission Office, “Teerayuth” petitions the Election Commission to send the Constitutional Court to dissolve the progress. Told that the decision was binding because he was the one who filed the complaint from the beginning. Not afraid to create conflict Tomorrow we will continue to the NACC. Teeth against ethics “Pitha-44 MP” sticks cheeks. 112
Mr. Teerayut Suwankasorn, in his capacity as a petitioner to the Constitutional Court, asked to consider a decision in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution in the case of Mr. Pitha Limjaroenrat. The leader of the Kao Klai Party and the Kao Klai Party committed acts of overthrow of the government. Came to submit a petition to the Chairman of the Election Commission (EC) and the Election Commission to ask them to consider taking action against the Kao Kai Party. According to authority and duties in order to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court yesterday (31 Jan.)
Mr. Teerayuth said that from studying the details of the decision of
the Constitutional Court that the actions of the two respondents, Mr. Pitha, as the leader of the Move Forward Party Including the Move Forward Party It is an act of using rights and freedoms to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State. This decision is binding on the Election Commission as well. Because he was the main person who filed a petition with the Constitutional Court on the matter. Therefore, it is considered that it is an obligation for them to carry out their duties in full accordance with their rights under the constitution. Therefore, he made a request to present to the Election Commission along with more than 100 pages of documents to submit to the Election Commission in order to force the Progressive Party to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court. which everything is according to evidence that arose from the actions of Mr. Pitha and the Kao Klai Party themselves
‘To be in accordance with the Political Party Act 2019, Section 92, Paragraph 1,
which states that when the committee has reasonable evidence to believe that any political party has committed any of the following acts: Submit an application to the Constitutional Court to order the dissolution of a political party by: (1) committing an act of subverting the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State; Therefore, he saw that It is the authority and duty of The Election Commission must act in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court. By submitting a petition to the Constitutional Court asking the court to consider ordering the Forward Party era in accordance with the Political Party Act 2019, Section 92, Paragraph 1,’ Mr. Teerayut said.
When asked about the purpose of submitting the matter to the Constitutional Court To open the way for submitting a petition to dissolve the Kao Klai Party or just wanting to stop the action, Mr. Teerayut said that initially filing the petition with the court I think I’m going to ask the court to be merciful and consider giv
ing an order to stop those actions. But due to many factors Also last night He read the court’s decision carefully. It is seen that when the court has considered and made a decision while he was in the position of petitioner is directly bound by the decision of the Constitutional Court Therefore, the process must be carried out in accordance with the decision. Therefore perform duties as specified in the Constitution: Anyone who knows the reason should submit a complaint to government officials with relevant authority and duties. Today I came to submit it to the Election Commission.
When asked again that if in the future the Election Commission sends the Constitutional Court to consider dissolving the Kaewklai Party. Are you worried that it will cause chaos again? Mr. Teerayut said that he is not worried because the decision of the Constitutional Court yesterday (January 31) sets the political and governance standards of the country. When the party advances or party members or supporters or people who like t
he Progressive Party Being in a position to act and adhere to Thai political and administrative norms which even though it occurred from the decision of the Constitutional Court It is believed that this principle is already present in the regulations of the Progressive Party. How will it affect or hurt each other? It is an individual matter that that person should consider and remember.
As for some academics, they think that the decision of the Constitutional Court creates a new norm that Article 112 cannot be amended both inside and outside the House of Representatives. Mr. Teerayuth said that shows that the academic has not read it. or did not listen to the decision of the Constitutional Court in detail May sound superficial I could only say that I would like to go back and listen to it several times because the last line was moments before the end. The court said the door was not closed. But the amendment must be according to the correct legislative pattern. The word “legislative” means that it must be a
consensus.
‘But those who thought of amending Section 112, the court clearly ruled that they had other significant hidden intentions. which the general public may not yet know I think that the Constitutional Court, who is a teacher Be an adult He is an expert in the principles of law. Moreover, before making a decision like this I know from the contents of the decision that there were 62 meetings to consider my request, which is considered a large number. It shows that the court considered all aspects in detail, including information from many government agencies related to the security department. Royal Thai Police The Office of the Judiciary or the Court of Justice also sent it. The court raised the issue and considered it in detail,’ Mr. Teerayut said.
Mr. Teerayut said that tomorrow (Feb. 2) at 10:00 a.m. he will submit a matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in order to investigate and prosecute the ethics of the Progressive Party. and 44 Progressive Party MPs who joined in proposing
amendments to Law 112, including Mr. Pitha. Because it is seen that this is an action that seriously violates and fails to comply with ethical standards. It is believed that the result will be similar to the case of Ms. Pareena Kraikupt, which did not take long to consider.
Source: Thai News Agency