Piyabutr marks 10 years of charter referendum, argues new constitution trapped by court rulings
Piyabutr Saengkanokkul analyzes the 10th anniversary of the 2017 constitution referendum, highlighting how court rulings stall reform and proposing four new campaign goals.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Piyabutr points out that 10 years after the 2017 charter referendum, progress is trapped by court rulings.
- Emphasizes the massive 21,621,638 votes in the Feb 8, 2026 referendum demanding a new constitution.
- Argues that the primary constituent power of citizens supersedes any constitutional court rulings.
- Proposes four campaign strategies to build broad public alliances for a brand-new charter.
On August 7, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, secretary-general of the Progressive Movement, published a political analysis on Facebook marking the tenth anniversary of the 2017 constitutional referendum. He recalled that back on August 7, 2016, citizens faced an unfair voting process where opponents struggled to campaign and many faced arrests and criminal charges, eventually leading the approval side to win with 16,820,402 votes under the current charter framework.
Nearly a decade later, on February 8, 2026, Thai citizens cast their votes in another referendum asking whether a new constitution should replace the 2017 charter. The result was a resounding victory for change, with 21,621,638 voters endorsing a new constitution. Yet, six months after that referendum and coinciding with the exact tenth anniversary of the 2016 vote, a critical question remains: why has a new constitution still not materialized despite such an overwhelming mandate?
Piyabutr explained that the process is stalled because society remains trapped by a Constitutional Court ruling which dictated that a new charter requires a referendum and must be drafted exclusively by parliament. Consequently, lawmakers, political parties, MPs, and senators became preoccupied with debating how to design a drafting body that conforms to the court's strict parameters. However, the Progressive Movement leader argued that following this path is fundamentally misinterpreting the core issue.
"The legitimacy derived from the February 8 referendum is so powerful that we have no need to worry about the cage built for us by the Constitutional Court."
Piyabutr Saengkanokkul
From a constitutional law perspective, when millions of citizens collectively expressed their will on February 8, 2026, they were exercising their original constituent power, known in legal theory as Pouvoir constituant originaire. This innate, absolute power possessed by citizens inherently surpasses the legislative power of parliament and outranks any judicial rulings from the Constitutional Court—an institution born directly out of the 2017 charter which the public seeks to abolish. Therefore, utilizing rulings from a court spawned by the 2017 constitution to govern the abolition of that very same charter is a contradiction.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
The distinction in constitutional jurisprudence between constituent power (Pouvoir constituant) and constituted power (Pouvoir constitué) is vital for understanding political crises. Constituted powers are limited by existing legal frameworks, whereas constituent power represents the ultimate sovereignty of the people, granting them absolute legitimacy to overhaul governance rules when established systems fail to serve society.
To propel this agenda forward, Piyabutr proposed four main campaign topics to shift public consciousness. First, the call for a new constitution serves as an inclusive, accessible issue resonating across all social groups. Second, the campaign covers daily hardships and structural problems—such as the Senate's origins, electoral systems, independent agencies, and welfare—all of which trace back to the constitution. Third, the February 8 referendum provides timely and legitimate backing. Fourth, the campaign operates safely within legal ceilings while pushing structural demands to their utmost limits.
Source: Matichon Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment