The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition claiming that the Election Commission's inclusion of barcodes on election ballots violated regulations and caused invalid ballots. The petition also accused the commission of collecting political opinion data in violation of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). The court noted that if rights are considered violated, the petitioner may exercise rights to file complaints with other courts.
On 10 Jun 2026 GMT+7, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided not to accept the petition filed by Mr. Ratchaket Rojanamonthien requesting the court to rule under Section 213 of the Constitution on whether the Election Commission's act of placing barcodes on ballots for members of the House of Representatives caused ballots to be invalid, violating the Election Commission’s regulations on elections of House members, B.E. 2566 (2023), Article 129. The petition further alleged that the commission’s collection of political opinion data without voter consent violated the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019), Section 26, infringing the petitioner’s rights or freedoms, and conflicting with various constitutional provisions including Sections 25 (paragraph one), 26, 27, 32, 34, 50 (7), and 224 (paragraph one, clause 2).
The court found that based on the facts, supplementary petition, and accompanying documents, if Mr. Ratchaket believes his rights or freedoms were violated, he may seek remedies through other courts as provided by Section 25 (paragraph three) of the Constitution. Since the Constitution or related laws already prescribe specific procedures and authorities for such petitions, per the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018) Section 47(2), and Section 46 (paragraph three) mandates the court to reject petitions accordingly, Mr. Ratchaket cannot file the petition under Section 213 of the Constitution.