The Constitutional Court rejected Lawyer Aun's petition requesting the court to halt or postpone the first meeting of the House of Representatives, stating that he is not a petitioner in the case concerning the Election Commission’s organization of non-confidential elections.
On 1 Apr 2026 GMT+7, reporters reported that the Constitutional Court reviewed the petition by Mr. Phattharapong Suphaksorn, known as Lawyer Aun, who requested the court to impose temporary measures before ruling by halting or postponing the first meeting of the House of Representatives. This followed the Ombudsman (the petitioner) asking the Constitutional Court to consider under Section 213 of the Constitution, with 21 petitions challenging the Election Commission’s decision to design and print ballots using barcode and QR code technology. It is believed that these codes could reveal and verify the identity of voters and the results, thus compromising the secrecy of the vote, which allegedly violates the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court considered and discussed that Mr. Phattharapong Suphaksorn is not a petitioner in this case. His petition appears to be an amendment or addition to the Ombudsman’s petition, but according to the Organic Act on the Constitutional Court Procedure, Section 55, only the petitioner is authorized to make such amendments.
The Constitutional Court therefore unanimously decided to dismiss the petition. Furthermore, the court found no imminent risk of damage or violence that would justify imposing any temporary measures or procedures before delivering its ruling.