Petition ‘ did not meet assessment conditions ‘
PUBLISHED: 13 Mar 2025 at 05: 50
The Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a government complaint asking it to understand the meaning of the term,” a lack of apparent honesty”, saying the plea involved a matter of legal understanding but did not meet the requirements for a review.
The petition, submitted by Prime Minister’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil as instructed by the government, focused on Part 160 of the law and Area 9 of the Buyers of Political Positions Act.
Part 160 of the charter outlines the skills required to become a government minister and social office-holder. It says ministries must demonstrate evident sincerity and must not have committed any significant ethical violations.
Area 9 of the Buyers of Political Positions Act says these people may join social norms.
The cabinet’s complaint is commonly believed to be linked to the treatment of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister by the Constitutional Court in August last month over an honest infraction related to his appointment of past prisoner Pichit Chuenban as a government minister.
According to that ruling, the prime minister must exercise sound judgement when appointing cabinet ministers for royal approval.
The court itself is empowered to rule on matters involving the roles and powers of the House of Representatives, the Senate, parliament, the cabinet or public independent agencies under Section 210 of the charter and the organic law on Procedures of the Constitutional Court.
The court on Wednesday said any request for a ruling must directly concern the duties and powers prescribed in the constitution and any petition filed must be submitted after a dispute has already occurred.
It said the cabinet’s petition was merely seeking an interpretation and clarification of constitutional provisions, rather than a resolution of a dispute over duties and powers, so it did not meet the criteria for a judicial review.
The court ruled 8 to 1 to reject the petition, with the minority judge said to be Udom Sitthiwirattham, who argued the petition met the necessary criteria for consideration.
Earlier, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said the request for the court’s interpretation was unrelated to any potential cabinet reshuffle but noted that the government wanted to prevent any future complaints regarding ethical violations.
Following Mr Srettha’s removal, some analysts speculated that Section 160 could also be used against her.