[ad_1]
The Constitutional Court dismisses the petition for proof of the mob to overthrow the ruling.
6th of December Constitutional Court Office Publication of Constitutional Court Order No. 67/2020 Subject: Consideration No. 16/2020 dismissal Mr. Sonthiya Sawasdee Former members of the Palang Pracharat Party (petitioner) filed a complaint against the protesters, students and youth liberation groups (Libre –YOUTH) which is now Citizen Mafia 2020 (Defendant) In case the group gave a speech without notifying the assembly according to the Public Assembly Law of 2015, and there is a call to the government to dissolve the new elected council. Amend the constitution Including insulting the monarchy
Follow the news, press follow the line fresh news
In this case The petitioner before the Constitutional Court to order the annulment of said act. Because it is the organization of a rally using the right and freedom to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State. The petitioner had filed a petition with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (FOS) to request the Constitutional Court to resolve the termination of said act. But OPS did not proceed within 45 days of receiving the request. Therefore, the petitioner refers him directly to the Constitutional Court to request a decision under article 49 of the Constitution as follows:
1. Order the group to stop the assembly 2. Establish temporary protective measures to prohibit any gathering. Until the Constitutional Court has a decision
Constitutional court He considered the request and saw that The facts are not enough. Therefore, allow the petitioner to modify the petition
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a reform on September 28, 2020, identifying the person who acted as the petitioner alleged, namely Mr. Prit Chivarak (penguin) Ms. Panasaya Sitthichirawattanakul (rainbow) Mr. Anon Nampha Y Mr. Panupong Chadnok 4 Mafia leader In addition to citing additional data on the organization of the speech rally on September 19-20, 2020 in the Sanam Luang area
For issues in the Constitutional Court, You must first consider that The petitioner’s petition and the additional petition must be with article 49 of the Constitution that the Constitutional Court will accept for consideration or not. Paragraph one Provided that “no person may exercise their right or their freedom to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”
Second paragraph Stating that “Anyone who knows that an act pursuant to paragraph one shall have the right to request PAHO to request the Constitutional Court to resolve and order the abolition of such acts” andParagraph three It stipulated that “in the event that the FSO has an order not to receive the requested action OR not to proceed within 15 days after the date of receipt of the request, the petitioner may submit a petition directly to the Constitutional Court.”
Considered and seen that Despite the additional petitions and requests, the petitioner identified the person who organized the rally on July 19, 2020, but the action was not added. With relevant facts and circumstances Therefore, the petitioner’s request and the additional requests are incomplete, unclear and incomprehensible according to the Constitutional Court Procedures Law, BE2561 (2018), article 42, first paragraph
In addition, when the Constitutional Court orders the petitioner to modify the petition to complete the Constitutional Court Law, the petitioner did not proceed with the amendment ordered by the Constitutional Court. Should be the case Constitutional Court Law, article 53, paragraph two Therefore, an order has been decided not to accept a request for the act of organizing a speaking meeting on July 19, 2020.
In the petitioner’s case, he alleges that said group organized a public speaking meeting on September 19 and 20, 2020, which does not seem to be confirmed by the fact that the petitioner submitted a petition to the Office of the Sor. Order not accepting requests in this section for consideration Relying on the reasons mentioned above Therefore, he ordered not to accept the request for consideration. And by not accepting the request for consideration Any other request will be lost.
[ad_2]
