Bangkok: Academics have analyzed two potential approaches for the Constitutional Court to address the controversial barcode case, which has stirred significant debate regarding election integrity in the country. The court's decision could either lead to the dismissal of the petition or the declaration of the election as void, without necessitating a new election or the imprisonment of Election Commission members due to existing legal protections.
According to Thai News Agency, Associate Professor Yutthaporn Isarachai from the Faculty of Political Science at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, offered insights into the Constitutional Court's 6-3 decision to accept the case centered around the barcode on ballots. Prof. Yutthaporn argues that this issue compromises the election's direct and secret nature. He noted that the Election Commission must provide a statement within 15 days as mandated by the court. The subsequent deliberation will consider the commission's statements, expert opinions, and relevant legal aspects. Given the primarily legal nature of the case, minimal witness testimony is expected, potentially concluding in 30 to 60 days, aligning with the average duration for similar cases. The anticipated ruling could either dismiss the petition due to insufficient grounds or declare the election void, triggering legal action against those responsible for the barcode placement, a matter for the Criminal Court's Anti-Corruption Division which is already addressing complaints against the commission's seven members. The Constitutional Court's ruling may also influence these proceedings.
In terms of civil compensation, Assoc. Prof. Yutthaporn emphasized examining whether any orders were issued in good faith. If so, there would be no civil liability for damages related to the election.
When questioned about the likelihood of the election being declared void and a subsequent election held, Assoc. Prof. Yutthaporn suggested this scenario is improbable. The court might instead rule that the election was not conducted in secrecy, but not to an extent warranting annulment. The integrity of voter registration lists, ballot stubs, and marked ballots with barcodes remains a concern. The court could mandate the Election Commission to enhance security measures or refine future procedures. Alternatively, it might dismiss the issue, citing inadequate justification since the three critical elements have yet to be fully reconciled.
Addressing concerns about potential imprisonment of Election Commission members, Asst. Prof. Yutthaporn reassured that such outcomes are unlikely. The Election Commission maintains that its actions were backed by law, adhering to regulations under the Constitutional Act on the Election of Members of Parliament, and can argue compliance with legal protocols in all aspects, including any marks made on ballot papers for security purposes.