The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) on Thursday passed its first reading of a proposed amendment to the Civil Procedure Code to cut appeals to the Supreme Court.
A total of 168 NLA members voted in favour of the amendment, while nine voted against it, following a debate in which critics claimed the changes would deprive the public of the right to appeal.
The amendment was put forth by the Office of Court of the Judiciary, through the cabinet, to address the growing number of appeals in the Supreme Court — some of which are used to delay compensation payments and thereby exploit the system.
Hefty numbers of appeals hinder swift administration of justice by causing a delay in the final judgment, according to those in favour.
Currently, civil cases can be appealed if the losing party rejects the ruling, but the amendment stipulates that cases instead be screened for approval by a committee composed of three Supreme Court judges and its vice-president.
Appeals likely to pass the process include disputes related to the public interest and those ruled contrary to precedent by the lower courts.
Speaking in favour of the amendment, NLA member Somchai Sawaengkarn said that though the bill may limit the public's right to seek justice in three courts, the pros of vetting appeals outweigh the cons. The amendment would shorten the time frame of civil case proceedings, and involved parties could be invited to participate in appeals screenings.
But NLA member Thani Onla-iad expressed concerns about the standards for judicial administration in the Courts of Appeal, noting there are 10 such courts scattered throughout the country, each with different standards for reviewing cases.
The Lawyers Council of Thailand also opposes the change because of its impact on the public's legal rights, he added.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said that the parties involved in civil cases can still appeal, but their applications will first be reviewed to make sure they have a legal basis. The Court of Appeal's decision is the last word in cases for narcotics and consumer protection matters, and the system has not proved problematic, he said.
There are only 140 judges in the Supreme Court, while there are up to 25,000 civil cases pending review. The ratio of one judge per 150 cases overloads the system, according to Mr Wissanu.
But NLA member Tuang Anthachai said it is not right to solve the backlog by undermining a bedrock legal principle. The Supreme Court should deal with its internal management problems, Mr Tuang said.