The Constitutional Court has three options for its ruling in a case in which the Move Forward party is accused of intending to overthrow the Constitutional Monarchy with its election pledge to abrogate Section 112 of the Criminal Code, more commonly known as the lèse majesté law.
Assistant Professor Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, director of the university’s Law Centre, Thammasat University, said that this case is, however, potentially more serious for the Move Forward party than the iTV share ownership case against its former leader Pita Limjaroenrat, on which the Constitutional Court ruled on Wednesday clearing him of the charge.
He played down speculation that the party will be dissolved, because the petitioner only asked the court to order the party to cease attempts to abrogate or weaken the lèse majesté law, not to dissolve the party.
The three possible rulings by the court are to:
- Dismiss the petition, if it finds that the stated intention to change or repeal the lèse majesté law does not amount to an attempt to topple the Constitutional Monarchy.
- Find that the party’s election campaign pledge is not an attempt to topple the Constitutional Monarchy, but orders it to cease such campaign activities.
- Find that the party is guilty of attempting to topple the Constitutional Monarchy and orders the party to be dissolved.
Prinya ruled out the third option, however, saying that it is not a sanction being sought by the petitioner, who is only seeking stop the party’s campaign to scrap the lèse majesté law.
He believes that the court is most likely to choose the second option.
