Reflections on the Insufficient Elucidation of the Contrast between Rigid and Flexible Constitutional Amendment in Thai Constitutional Law Documents

Abstract

Constitutional law, which governs the relationship between the government and its citizens, is distinct from ordinary statutes, whether in the form of a codified or uncodified constitution. This distinction leads to a more challenging process for amending the constitution compared to ordinary laws. However, many elucidations of rigid and flexible constitutional amendments in Thai constitutional law materials often describe flexible constitutional amendments as easily achievable, similar to ordinary statutes. This characterisation is inconsistent with the inherent nature of constitutional law. Therefore, this article proposes a modification to such elucidations. The modified elucidation should reflect the more rigid nature of constitutional amendments compared to ordinary statutes. The article further proposes that when comparing the flexible amendment processes, particularly in countries with an uncodified constitutional system, to the enactment or amendment of ordinary statutes, it is essential to clarify that the similarity lies in the amendment process itself. Phrases like “a constitution can be amended like ordinary legislation” should be avoided, as they can lead to the misunderstanding that the status of a constitution or constitutional rules is equivalent to that of ordinary laws.