Constitutional Amendment: A Comparative Study between the Czech Republic and Thailand

Abstract

This article aims to examine and compare the models, procedures, and limitations of constitutional amendment, including the power dynamics of the Constitutional Courts, in order to synthesize policy and practical recommendations for Thailand. Utilizing documentary research methodology, this study analyzes 16 academic and legal documents from 1997 to the present. The analysis applies comparative legal research methods in conjunction with legal positivism and deductive legal reasoning. The findings reveal that: (1) The Czech Republic’s model possesses the advantage of protecting the material core of the Constitution through the eternity clauses of Article 9, with its Constitutional Court acting as a substantive guardian in the Melčák case; however, it lacks public participation via referendum. (2) Thailand’s model under the 2017 Constitution safeguards the state form under Section 255, yet suffers from excessive formal rigidity under Section 256. Furthermore, the Thai Constitutional Court’s interpretations in Decisions No. 4/2564 and 18/2568 have created complex constraints requiring up to three referendums, leading to a constitutional deadlock. (3) The comparative analysis reflects a fundamental divergence between the Czech court (material guardian) and the Thai court (formal guardian). Consequently, this study proposes policy recommendations to amend Section 256 to reduce procedural requirements, and practical recommendations to clearly define and render predictable the scope of the Constitutional Court's review power.