Constitutional Court, The Constitutional Court does not accept the request of Dr. Ong to advertise alcoholic beverages. violation of the constitution The reason that the petitioner did not suffer or suffer damage from a direct violation of rights or freedoms
Reporters reported that The Constitutional Court passed a unanimous decision. Not accepting the request for consideration and decision. In the case where Mr. Songchai Niamhom asked the Constitutional Court to consider a decision in accordance with Section 213 of the Constitution that Mr. Padipat Santipada, Phitsanulok MP, 1st Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is a famous person, committed an act that was an advertisement of alcoholic beverages. Using your own privileges It is a violation. Does the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act 2008, Section 3 and Section 32, violate Section 4 of the Constitution, Section 29, paragraphs three and four, Section 27 and Section 50(3) or not?
The court found that the facts in the petition and the accompanying documents It does not appear that Mr. Songchai have had their rights and freedoms violated and have suffered or been damaged by a direct violation of their rights or freedoms From Mr. Padipat's actions? In the event that it is not in accordance with Constitutional Court Procedure Act 2018, Section 46, paragraph one and paragraph two, which Section 46, paragraph three, provides for the Constitutional Court to order not accepting the petition for consideration. Therefore, Mr. Songchai Therefore, such a petition cannot be submitted according to Section 213 of the Constitution.
Source: Thai News Agency