Bangkok: Prits has announced that after discussions with the President of the Constitutional Court, there is a clear path forward for holding a referendum to amend the constitution twice. The next step involves expediting discussions with the President of the House of Representatives next Wednesday, aiming for a comprehensive review. Although Prits declined to comment on Chusak’s proposal to interpret the Referendum Act as a financial law to avoid a 180-day delay, he remains confident that adhering to a roadmap of holding two referendums will render the timeframe manageable.

According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Panusaya Wacharasindhu, an MP from the Prachachon Party and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Political Development, Mass Communication, and Public Participation, provided insights following his informal meeting with the President of the Constitutional Court. The meeting focused on the process of drafting a new constitution, with discussions revolving around the Constitutional Court’
s ruling 4/2564, which clearly advocates for a two-stage referendum process. The dialogue highlighted that the need for holding a referendum thrice was not expressed, aligning with the court’s ruling.

The double referendum approach, as suggested by the Prachachon Party and Pheu Thai Party, involves submitting a draft amendment to include Chapter 15/1, which addresses drafting a new constitution. Should this draft pass the three required readings in parliament, an initial referendum would gauge public support for this approach, followed by a second referendum to approve the drafted content. This aligns with the Constitutional Court’s ruling and will be discussed with the President of the National Assembly next Wednesday. Success in this endeavor would mean parliamentary consideration of the constitutional amendment, with a referendum conducted post-approval.

Mr. Parit expressed optimism that the discussions would facilitate a parliamentary review of the draft amendment, and although some groups might push fo
r Constitutional Court consideration, he believes the proposal does not contravene ruling no. 4/2564. Clarity on this matter is deemed crucial for drafting a new constitution in time for the next election.

Addressing Mr. Chusak Sirinil’s proposal to classify the referendum law as financial legislation to bypass the 180-day delay, Mr. Panusaya stated that further details are needed before commenting. Nevertheless, he acknowledged concerns over potential delays if the House of Representatives insists on a single-level majority vote, possibly extending the referendum bill’s timeline. However, if consensus is achieved to conduct two referendums, the timeline should remain unaffected, with the parliament first considering the draft amendment in three readings. Adhering to this process could circumvent the need for amending the Referendum Act, ensuring a smoother path forward.