Bangkok: Academics and media representatives have observed that the current Constitutional Court is adapting to accept criticism as a democratic principle. They noted concerns over potential amendments to allow judges to be elected, fearing this could replicate issues seen in other countries. Additionally, they called for more streamlined and accessible communication processes and criticized politicians who exploit the constitution for their benefit without enacting necessary reforms.

According to Thai News Agency, these observations were shared during a seminar on ‘Creating a System of Checks and Balances and the Role of the Constitutional Court in the Future,’ organized by the Constitutional Court. Mr. Wanwichit Boonprong, Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs at Rangsit University’s Faculty of Political Science, questioned the authority of only nine individuals in deciding national futures compared to those with direct public consensus. He highlighted the tendency to focus on downstream issues, neglecting the reasons behind complaints that necessitated the court’s establishment. Mr. Wanwichit also expressed concerns over potential politicization of the judiciary, drawing parallels with Mexico’s experience where limited public participation in judicial elections led to criticisms of the justice system.

Mr. Wanwichit further remarked that the Constitutional Court’s current openness to criticism marks an improvement in its democratic engagement. He suggested the introduction of an ethics court could become a contentious issue, with differing opinions on court decisions being a normal occurrence. Transparency was acknowledged in the court’s public disclosure of resolutions, such as the controversial 7 to 2 decision regarding the Prime Minister’s duties. He also advocated for a court spokesperson to address questions and reduce misinformation.

Mr. Chawarong Limpatmapani, President of the National Press Council, discussed the perception of the Constitutional Court as a political entity, especially under the 2017 Constitution which expanded its role in political ethics. He emphasized the need for clearer and more concise communication from the court to address rapid media cycles and public misunderstandings, suggesting the use of simplified language in court documents.

Senior journalist Mr. Montree Chomphan raised concerns over the selection process for Constitutional Court judges, particularly the Senate’s role in approving candidates, and the implications of recent near-unanimous selections that failed Senate approval. He emphasized the importance of media and academic vigilance in these processes and suggested constitutional amendments to address these systemic issues, though he acknowledged the challenges of implementing such changes.

Mr. Montri also commented on the ongoing debates around constitutional amendments, comparing the constitution to a “poisonous tree” that politicians selectively exploit for benefits. He stressed the need for a comprehensive review of the Constitutional Court’s responsibilities and the necessity of reform to ensure the court’s effectiveness in handling a wide range of issues. Furthermore, he critiqued the concept of “legal warfare,” attributing it to persistent challenges and disputes.