Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Constitutional Court Ruling No. 33/2554

Country/Territory
Thailand
Type of court
Others
Date
Nov 23, 2011
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Reference number
33/2554
Language
Thai
Abstract

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) submitted the complaint on the Royal Decree that established national park area according to article 6 of the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) in Doi Phu Ka National Park, Nan Province overlapped with the community forest. The NHRC supposed that the community right, which guaranteed under article 66 and 67 of the Constitution of B.E. 2550 (2007) as the people shall have the right to participate in the management of natural resources. But article 6 of the National Park Act did not consult the community before enacted the national park area. Then, the NHRC claimed that article 6 of the National Park Act was inconsistent with article 66 and 67 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court accepted the complaint on the ground of article 257 paragraph 1 (2) when the NHRC submitted the case to the Court that the provision of law is detrimental to the human rights and begs the question of the constitutionality. The Court ruled that article 6 did not prohibit the community from participating with natural resource management. Moreover, this provision did not restrict to take legal action against the government agency when the official violated the right of the people. Therefore, article 6 did not have any question of the constitutionality, regarding article 66 and 67 of the Constitution.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) submitted the complaint on the Royal Decree that established national park area according to article 6 of the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) in Doi Phu Ka National Park, Nan Province overlapped with the community forest. The NHRC supposed that the community right, which guaranteed under article 66 and 67 of the Constitution of B.E. 2550 (2007) as the people shall have the right to participate in the management of natural resources. But article 6 of the National Park Act did not consult the community before enacted the national park area. Then, the NHRC claimed that article 6 of the National Park Act was inconsistent with article 66 and 67 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court accepted the complaint on the ground of article 257 paragraph 1 (2) when the NHRC submitted the case to the Court that the provision of law is detrimental to the human rights and begs the question of the constitutionality. The Court ruled that article 6 did not prohibit the community from participating with natural resource management. Moreover, this provision did not restrict to take legal action against the government agency when the official violated the right of the people. Therefore, article 6 did not have any question of the constitutionality, regarding article 66 and 67 of the Constitution.

Full text
center33-54_Court Decision.pdf
center-law33_54_Case Summary.pdf
center33-54.pdf
Website
www.constitutionalcourt.or.th