As it turns 20 this year, the Constitutional Court has been given extra powers to use its discretion to punish critics whose comments are deemed a "violation of court powers".
The organic law on the court's procedures took effect on March 2 after it was passed by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly. This makes criticism of the court punishable by up to one month in prison and a 50,000-baht fine.
The extra protection provided for this independent agency, whose rulings on high-profile political cases have occasionally drawn controversy, will do more harm than good. The use of this special power will not only jeopardise the court's accountability but pose a threat to the democratic process.
The law enables the court to bring cases against anyone commenting on its rulings and orders in a "dishonest manner" or with the use of "rude, sarcastic or malicious" words or meaning, especially if the court regards such comments as a "violation of court powers".
This means cases will be initiated and concluded by the Constitutional Court, without any need to go through the entire judicial process -- from the police to the prosecutor to the three different courts -- as it is required for other defamation cases involving contempt of court.
The broad definition of "dishonest manner" makes the law prone to a wide range of interpretations. As the judicial body that has dealt with controversial, high-profile cases involving electoral democracy, many of the court's decisions have caused tension and been questioned.
The new powers granted the court are similar to those given to the other three courts of justice.
Created in 1998 as part of a series of political reforms launched one year earlier, the court's mission is to serve as a guardian of the constitution. Over the past decade, lawsuits have been used as means to either seek solutions to political disputes or keep governments in check. After a number of controversial rulings, the court has been at the forefront of "judicial activism". Its decisions on many high-profile cases involving politicians, governments and political parties have inflamed controversies rather than offered solutions.
Even before the enactment of the new law, there were two prominent cases brought against critics of the court. A columnist and three publishers at Naew Na newspaper were each given suspended, one-year prison sentences and fined 900,000 baht for criticising the court's ruling in the assets concealment case against then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2001. Another case in 2010 resulted in a one-year jail term for a former Pheu Thai Party spokesperson and an ex-MP of the party for criticising the court's then-president.
The two cases went through the normal judicial process. The new law, however, allows the Constitutional Court to bring charges against individuals and then proceed with a trial and ruling.
Unlike the legislative and administrative branches, the judiciary has not been subjected to routine criticism. The criminal law on contempt of court has limited comments on court rulings as critics fear the consequences.
In fact, some legal experts have cautioned that "constructive and academic" criticism and comments should be allowed for all court decisions as long as they do not obstruct the justice process.
Electoral democracy involves and affects everybody in Thailand. The constitution sets rules and frameworks for it to grow and progress.
Therefore, the decisions and orders of the Constitutional Court will likely affect the electorate, the majority of whom are not academics but people who may find it hard to form opinions deemed "honest" and without "rude, sarcastic or malicious" words.
The court should refrain from exercising this new power. Many countries allow honest criticism of court verdicts. Refraining from punishing its critics could make the Constitutional Court an accountable and legitimate body.
It could also help with the country's march toward democracy.
