Bangkok: "Wayo" has expressed satisfaction with the recent ruling of the Criminal Court for Corruption Cases concerning the use of QR codes and barcodes on ballot papers. The court has not yet officially accepted the indictment, but positive developments have been noted. It has granted the Election Commission a month to respond to specific questions, signaling progress in the judicial process.
According to Thai News Agency, Dr. Wayo Asavarungruang, Deputy Leader of the People's Party, appeared at the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases to hear the court's order on a lawsuit filed by the People's Party against the Election Commission (EC) and nine others. The court advised the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include special intent under Section 157 of the Criminal Code and to add any relevant subordinate laws like regulations, announcements, and bylaws to the complaint. Dr. Wayo stated his intention to enhance the complaint's completeness with these additions.
Significantly, the court has instructed the Election Commission to clarify the initial facts, despite not having formally accepted the case. Using Article 3 of the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2017, the court permits parties to provide further factual clarification after filing a lawsuit. This clarification is required by April 24, 2026, addressing three specific questions: the meaning of 'secret' in the electoral process, the legal basis and implications of adding QR codes and barcodes to ballot papers, and the procedures for reading these symbols to determine voter choices.
Dr. Wayo highlighted that the court has not delayed proceedings, even advising the People's Party and the four plaintiffs to refine their complaint within 30 days. The court also required the Election Commission to provide clarifications within a month to prevent delays, paving the way for a subsequent order on June 24, 2026. Parties wishing to contest the Election Commission's responses have until June 17, 2026, to do so.
The court's current order is seen as a favorable sign, allowing the People's Party to streamline their complaint and promptly seek Election Commission clarifications on three pivotal issues. These issues are of significant interest to the public and the court. Although the complaint hasn't been officially accepted, the court can proceed with hearings and seek clarifications while the complaint is being amended. The plaintiff retains the right to challenge the defendant's clarifications.
Dr. Wayo responded to queries about the Constitutional Court's involvement, clarifying that it is a separate matter with different legal implications. He mentioned that the Election Commission's secretary-general, Saeng Boonmee, had provided an opinion rather than a factual explanation. In court, the Election Commission is required to substantiate their answers with evidence, not just opinions. Regarding the potential political impact, Dr. Wayo believed that any political ramifications would more likely stem from the Constitutional Court, which has the authority to invalidate elections.
He noted that the Criminal Court for Corruption Cases lacks such power, and this case could span 5-10 years. The case focuses on the Election Commission and its officials, with limited involvement of political figures. If the Constitutional Court's decision is unfavorable to the Election Commission, necessitating a new election, its findings would likely be binding. Dr. Wayo plans to incorporate such findings into the complaint if allowed by the court.