The Constitution Court yesterday agreed to rule on the legitimacy of the April 2 election in response to complaints filed by the Ombudsman.

The Election Commission (EC), meanwhile, expressed confidence that it would be able to defend itself against accusations that it has violated the charter.

The court will also rule today on the case filed by the EC against the Central Administrative Court's suspension of the third round of voting in 14 constituencies in nine provin-ces.

And it will hand down its decision on the Central Administrative Court's ruling against the exclusive use of rubber stamps in polling stations.

Constitution Court secretary-general Paiboon Warahapaitoon announced the court's decision to review the legality of the April 2 election.

"As a matter of law, it's likely that the Election Commission violated the Constitution," the Constitution Court spokesman Paiboon Waraha-paitoon told reporters, according to Agence France-Presse.

The 15 sitting judges gave the EC three days to respond to claims that the polls were improperly organised, Paiboon said.

Election commissioner Prinya Nakchudtree said yesterday that the EC had started drafting its defence against the accusations filed by the Ombudsman at the Constitution Court. The court yesterday ordered the EC to submit its report within three days.

In regard to polling station configurations, the EC would explain that it arranged booths in accordance with research and a survey that showed 70 per cent of respondents approved of the method. He said polling stations were set up in such a way that voters turn their back to election officials and can keep voting secret. Many foreign countries used this configuration, "except someone tried to peep at the voters,'' he said.

With regards to claims a big

party hired small parties to run in the election, he said the EC had already decided to dissolve small parties but further investigation was needed to link the big party to the offence.

On claims the EC made significant decisions without holding full quorum meetings, he said the law did not ban the commission from holding teleconferences or meetings via telephone.

He said the EC had a quorum shortage after the death of Commissioner Jaral Buranapansri. He said the EC had suggested the Supreme Court propose candidates to become EC commissioners for Senate endorsement, but the Senate did not agree to the proposal. "Why didn't senators solve the problem long ago? Why do they just say now the solution is practical? The EC deserves justice," he said.

The accusations, made by PollWatch Foundation for Democracy chairman Saiyud Kerdpol and a group of university lecturers, are:

l The EC violated Article 144 of the Constitution by not remaining neutral in organising and managing the election, as it appeared the EC unjustly and inappropriately told the government that it could organise a general election within 31 days of a House dissolution.

l Accepting the EC's comment, the government set April 2 as the election date (which was 35 days from the day of the House dissolution). Although the Constitution stipulates that an election can be organised within 60 days of a dissolution, such a short timeframe was unjustified because it benefited the ruling party and put the opposition parties at a disadvantage because they were not able to participate in setting the election date.

l The EC violated Article 104 of the Constitution by configuring polling stations in such a way that voters could easily be observed by outsiders while exercising their voting rights, which ran counter to the principle that voting must be confidential.

l A large party violated Article 108 of the Constitution by fielding two candidates in one constituency - although the candidates ran under different banners. A probe by an EC subcommittee showed that the big party hired small parties to run in the election across the country to prevent its candidates from running unopposed.

l The EC issued rulings relating to the organisation of the election without holding full quorum meetings.

Asked if the court would rule before the House convenes, as sought by the government, Paiboon said only that the court had shortened the time allotted to the accused to defend themselves from 15 days to three days.

Asked what the consequences would be if the court nullified the general election after the House convened, Paiboon it should not cause any problems and no one had filed a complaint relating to such a scenario with the court.

Thai Rak Thai party-list MP Somsak Thepsuthin said if the court nullified the election, MPs who had been endorsed would fight back. "The grounds for declaring the election illegitimate do not carry enough weight," he said.

He dismissed academics' calls for the victorious Thai Rak Thai Party MPs to resign as idealistic and impractical. "We will fight against the move cancel the election because we do not want them to use their reasons to set a precedent," he said.

Parliament secretary-general Pitoon Pumhiran said the Constitution Court's decision to accept the complaints against the legality of the election did not mean that successful candidates should not report to Parliament, because the court had not issued an injunction to that effect.

However, he said since the court had agreed to hear the case, it would be inappropriate for the parties concerned to participate in any activities related to the election, such as for MPs to report to the House.

Democrat Party spokesman Ong-art Klampaiboon yesterday welcomed the Constitution Court's acceptance of the case as a "good sign" in bids to solve the political crisis. He said the party believed the court would proceed with the case fairly.

"Our party believes that the Constitution Court will look into the case in accordance with the true spirit of the law in an independent and swift manner," he said.