Parit questions Bhumjaithai Party's quick dismissal of new data from discussions with the Constitutional Court president about the CDA election, accusing them of having a preset agenda and trying to seize opportunities from ambiguous rulings to block public participation.
On 22 June 2026, Parit Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP from the Prachachon Party, updated on progress toward drafting a new constitution. He said that last Friday (19 June), the joint committee of MPs and senators met with the Constitutional Court president and judges, who clarified that Constitutional Court ruling 18/2568, which states that "the parliament cannot allow the public to directly elect the constitutional drafting committee," prohibits direct election of the "Constitution Drafting Committee" but does not forbid or deny the public's right to directly elect the "Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA)". The CDA would then appoint the drafting committee.
Parit said that with this new information clearly allowing CDA elections to proceed, he hoped all political parties that had supported elected CDA would come together to discuss implementation. However, within less than two days, three Bhumjaithai party leaders immediately dismissed this new information, citing various reasons to block an elected CDA. He therefore wishes to clarify and raise questions to these three leaders on three main points.
1. He understands that these three leaders do not want to act against the Constitutional Court ruling, but believes they also know the ruling is ambiguous and lacks democratic principles. Thus, the recent explanation from the Constitutional Court judges provides clarity on what is allowed or not, and proceeding accordingly would not violate the court ruling.
2. If they claim that this is merely the personal opinion of the court president or some judges, he emphasizes that during the meeting, the president clearly stated this explanation is not a personal view but the consensus of all judges before issuing the official ruling. If Bhumjaithai doubts his statement, they can ask their MPs who attended that meeting.
3. If they claim he previously concluded from discussions with the court president in 2024 that only two referendum rounds were needed, but the 2025 ruling says three rounds are required, they should reconsider their facts rather than echo incorrect claims. Ruling 18/2568 explicitly states two referendum rounds are sufficient (two questions in the first round and one in the second), matching his prior conclusion. Conversely, society recalls that before the ruling, Bhumjaithai insisted on three separate referendums and even walked out of a parliamentary meeting in February 2025. Had everyone followed Bhumjaithai’s position then, progress toward a new constitution would not have reached this point.
Parit concluded that if Bhumjaithai sincerely wants the public to participate in CDA elections, all parties should seriously consider the new information from discussions with the Constitutional Court. However, if Bhumjaithai continues to reject this new data, he cannot help but suspect they had a predetermined agenda from the start to exploit ambiguous rulings in order to close off and deny the public’s right to participate in CDA elections.