“Abhisit” reveals that the Democrat Party’s draft constitutional amendment faces no problems using public consultations to select Constitution Drafting Assembly members. It is expected that the full list of supporting MPs will be ready next week in compliance with the law.
At 08:00 on 23 Jun 2026 GMT+7, Abhisit Vejjajiva, party-list MP and leader of the Democrat Party, spoke about the constitutional amendment. He said the issue raised by the Constitutional Court ruling, which the Bhumjaithai Party used to claim it cannot support other parties’ drafts, was addressed. The parliamentary committee on courts, independent organizations, prosecutors, state enterprises, public organizations, and funds—which he is a member of—sought clarity from the Constitutional Court president and two other judges. They explained that the problem was that on the day the court wrote and discussed the ruling, it stated that the public should not directly elect the drafters of the constitution. That refers specifically to those who write the constitution directly, and that is the expressed opinion. However, the Democrat Party’s draft involves public consultations across provinces combined with parliamentary selection, plus 20 experts selected by court judges and academics. Therefore, Abhisit believes the party’s draft has no issues from the start. He expects to obtain the signatures of all MPs supporting this draft within this week to proceed with submission.
Expected to have the full list of supporting MPs next week.
When asked how the Democrat Party views allowing the public to select Constitution Drafting Assembly members, Abhisit said that during the meeting with the Constitutional Court president, explanations and exchanges were recorded and will likely serve as the guideline. Regarding the opposing view that the judges’ comments were informal opinions and not rulings, Abhisit said the judges who met with them were not the authors of that statement. They explained that during the meeting, the wording’s origin was discussed. That statement represents the ruling’s central opinion about the matter, which can be assumed to be the court’s intent as expressed.