Pita says Constitutional Court has no power to try Move Forward case

Former Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat argued on Sunday that the Constitutional Court has no power to accept the Election Commission’s petition to review whether the party should be dissolved related to the party’s campaign for amendments of the lese majeste law.

Pita also alleged that the EC’s petition itself was unlawful.
He held a press conference on Sunday to outline Move Forward’s defence in the case in which the EC asked the court to dissolve the party for allegedly being hostile to the constitutional monarchy in violation of the Political Parties Act.

The press conference was held even though the Constitutional Court has warned the party not to make public comments on cases that may influence public opinion, as it could impact the court's deliberations.

During the press conference, Pita outlined the party’s defensive argument in nine points that he classified in three groups – jurisdiction and process; facts; and penalty proportionality.
For the first group, Pita cited two points:

- The case does not fall under the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.
- The petition of the EC was unlawful.

For the facts group, Pita stated:

- The Constitutional Court’s ruling on January 31 on the party’s campaigns for amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code had no binding effect on the dissolution case against Move Forward.
- The Move Forward Party cannot be deemed as having acted with hostility against the constitutional monarchy or having done anything to topple the ruling system.
- Move Forward has never resolved to push for amendments to Article 112.

If the Constitutional Court rules in favour of the EC against Move Forward, Pita said the resulting penalty must comply with the following four points:

- Party dissolution must be the last resort if other remedies or penalties cannot be used.
- The Constitutional Court has no power to ban party executives from politics.
- The length of any ban must be meted out in proper proportion to the wrongdoing.
- Penalties must be handed out only to executives who were in office at the time of the deeds that led to the accusations.

Pita claimed that the ruling by the Constitutional Court on January 31 against himself and the Move Forward Party had no binding impact on the EC’s petition because the charges were different.

The EC cited the January 31 ruling to submit a petition with the Constitutional Court, asking it to dissolve the party for violating Article 92 of the Political Parties Act.

Pita noted that the ruling on January 31 accepted that he and Move Forward had exercised their rights and liberty to seek dissolution of the constitutional monarchy.

He said the ruling on January 31 did not say that the party was hostile against the constitutional monarchy but if it was allowed to continue such campaigns, it would be tantamount to being hostile to the ruling system.

Pita said the Political Parties Act stated that a party must have acted in hostility first before it could face charges, so the EC could not file the charge against Move Forward.

He said the Article 112 amendment bill has not been submitted to the House of Representatives yet so it should not be regarded as having carried out the offence yet.

Pita said if the court rules against Move Forward, it should spare the current executive board, which was formed after the time of the alleged offence. He said penalties should be given only to executives who were in office at the time of the alleged offence.

“It should be sufficient for the court to issue a warning to stop such action without terminating their political rights,” Pita said.

He said the 44 Move Forward MPs who sponsored the Article 112 amendment bill were qualified politicians and terminating their political future would deprive the country of such personnel.

He admitted that the party had a contingency plan and he believed if the party were dissolved, its MPs would remain with the party under a new banner.

But he said this was not the time for Move Forward to register a new party as a new vehicle for its MPs.