Article 61 ruling today ‘will not effect poll’

The junta chief added that sweeping powers granted by Article 44 of the interim constitution would not be used in place of the embattled article if the court rules today that it is unconstitutional and must be invalidated. 

“Still there are other NCPO [National Council for Peace and Order] orders,” he said, implying that the regime would still be able to exert control. 

The second clause of Article 61 prohibits the spread of “false”, “rude”, “inciting” or “intimidating” messages concerning the referendum and the charter. 

Agencies have often said the article is necessary to prevent chaos and disorder. 

However, a protest has been lodged against the article claiming that it potentially could violate freedom of expression protected by the interim constitution of 2014. 

Prayut expressed concern that people with different political viewpoints might confront each other at polling stations, where they will cast ballots to decide the fate of the junta-sponsored constitution on August 7. He also said the extension of the roadmap depends on whether the constitution passes the referendum. 

“It’s not that I’m forcing everyone to vote ‘yes’. But in theory, a constitution is indispensable for an election. “If there’s no charter, there’s no election,” he said. 

To hold an election, the country must be peaceful and free of violence, he said.

Should the charter fail to pass the national plebiscite, a new version that is slightly different from the current one would be written, Prayut said, adding that such a draft had not been written yet. 

A source familiar with the Constitutional Court said it is very probable the court would rule against the controversial article because the justices give considerable weight to human rights and freedom of expression. 

“Even if they rule that Article 61 is not unconstitutional, they are very likely to recommend that the regime allow people to voice their opinions about the referendum,” the source said. 

Other authorities besides the prime minister also addressed public concerns by emphasising that the referendum date would not be postponed as a result of the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

 

‘Other articles still enforced’

Authorities have consistently said the clause would be invalidated if the court rules against it, but the rest of the Referendum Law would remain in effect.

Udom Rathamarit, a spokesman for the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), told The Nation that the CDC would not have a problem regardless of the court’s decision today.

Only the controversial clause would be nullified not the entire law, he said, adding that procedures regarding the draft charter would proceed.

The first clause of Article 61 prohibiting actions that cause chaos would still be in effect, he said, addressing concerns that future campaigns could be conducted against the charter affecting the August vote. “The referendum date will remain unchanged. It is a different story from the referendum law,” he said.

Surachai Liengboonlertchai, president of the National Legislative Assembly, agreed the referendum would proceed according to schedule.

“If the court rules [Article 61] isn’t unconstitutional, then everything goes on as usual. But if it rules some clauses are unconstitutional, other articles will still be enforced. “Regardless, the process goes on,” he said.

The Internet Dialogue on Law Reform, or iLaw, whose director Jon Ungpakorn spearheaded the petition against Article 61, also said voiding the embattled clause should not delay the referendum.

The decision to file the petition was motivated by the aspiration that such an important process such as the referendum should be conducted in a free and fair manner, iLaw said, adding that people for or against the constitution should have equal opportunities to speak their mind.