Election Commission Challenges Court Ruling on Senate Election Lawsuits
The Election Commission is challenging a court ruling allowing citizens to file criminal complaints over alleged Senate election misconduct, arguing only candidates have legal standing to contest results under the 2018 Organic Act.
On November 9, the Office of the Election Commission (EC) announced that Court of Appeal President Witthaya Klongmee-khun issued a ruling on November 6 opening the way for citizens to file criminal complaints against the EC for corruption and misconduct in the Senate election. The ruling stated that every citizen is considered a victim of actions affecting the sovereign power of the people.
Following this ruling, several politicians and political activists involved in scrutinizing the Senate election case have indicated they intend to pursue legal action against the EC Secretary-General and the EC majority, likely citing Section 157 of the Criminal Code on corruption. They may reference the case of Veera Somkwamkid suing the Election Commission over undisclosed luxury watches, where the court sentenced Police Lieutenant Colonel Watcharapol Prasarnrachakit and Miss Supa Piyajitti to prison.
High-level EC sources reveal that under the Organic Act on the Acquisition of Senators 2018, Section 64 specifies that only candidates at the district level, or eligible voters at the provincial or national level, have the right to file objections claiming the election was not conducted honestly, fairly, or lawfully. Objections must be filed with the commission within three days of the election at that level. The commission must rule quickly; if it finds no grounds for suspicion, it dismisses the objection. If it finds credible evidence of wrongdoing, it proceeds under Section 59, and the commission's decision is final.
When reading the Senate Election Act Section 64 alongside the Court of Appeal President's latest reasoning, ordinary citizens would likely not be able to sue the EC directly, unlike in the 2019 MP election case where citizens had voting rights and duties, and the EC was merely the election organizer. Under the current Constitution and the Senate Election Act, only Senate candidates have standing to pursue election disputes, and must do so within three days of discovering the violation under Section 64.
Some parties reference corruption evidence from the Central Investigation Bureau's 26th investigation set, which the Prachachon Party, iLaw, and academics presented publicly to pursue cases against the EC. This raises the question of whether such evidence was legally obtained. It remains to be seen what results will follow if additional lawsuits are filed against the EC on various charges.
Source: Matichon
