The President of the National Legislative Assembly referred to the complaint from the members of the National Legislative Assembly claimed that the Community Forest Bill was contrary to article 66 of the Constitution of B.E. 2550 (2007). According to article 66 of the Constitution, the community shall have the right to conserve or restore their customs, local wisdom, or good culture of their community and participate in the management, maintenance, and exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity in a balanced and sustainable way. On the contrary, article 25 of the Community Forest Bill set the barrier for the community depending on its location by the exclusion community that located outside the conservation forest that preserved their community forest less than ten years to establish its community forest. Moreover, article 35 of the Community Forest Bill prohibited the community from utilizing timber products, which was against the fact that the community relied on the forest to use their forest while sustainably protecting the forest. The complaint, therefore, claimed that the Community Forest Bill was unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the Court has the authority to consider the procedural process under article 126 of the Constitution, which was the presence of no less than one-half of the House. The Bill had voided on the ground that the National Legislative Assembly did not have a quorum. Hence, the Court did not rule on the complaint since it did not change the result. The Community Forest Bill was lapsed by article 154 paragraph 3 as it was inconsistent with the Constitution.