Several Thai legal experts and political scientists have challenged parliament’s decision to reject Move Forward party leader Pita Limjaroenrat’s renomination as Thailand’s prime minister, insisting Rule 41, which was used to justify the decision, cannot overrule the Constitution.

 

Professor Tongthong Chandransu, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law of Chulalongkorn University, said that he shares the opinion of former constitution writer Borwornsak Uwanno that the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, has a higher legal status than parliamentary meeting regulations.

 

He said that the nomination of candidates for prime minister comes under a separate set of rules, in accordance with sections 159 and 272 of the Constitution.

 

He added that Chapter 9 of the parliamentary meeting regulations clearly specifies that nomination of a prime ministerial candidate must be seconded by at least one-tenth of the members of the House of Representatives, or 50 MPs, compared to Rule 29 which states that a motion for prime ministerial candidacy nomination must be seconded by at least 10 MPs.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/legal-experts-challenge-parliaments-rejection-of-pitas-renomination/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2023-07-21

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

30 minutes ago, webfact said:

Several Thai legal experts and political scientists have challenged parliament’s decision to reject Move Forward party leader Pita Limjaroenrat’s renomination as Thailand’s prime minister

To only fall on deaf ears........

3 hours ago, flyingtlger said:

To only fall on deaf ears........

, as it doesn't fit the directive of the "special" people. 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Several Thai legal experts and political scientists have challenged parliament’s decision to reject Move Forward party leader Pita Limjaroenrat’s renomination as Thailand’s prime minister, insisting Rule 41, which was used to justify the decision, cannot overrule the Constitution.

Laws and rules in Thailand are flexible... more like guidelines.

Even Captain Sparrow knows that.

60% plus of the electorate voted in MP's is just not enough with the parting dictators 250 senator gift 

The Thai legal "experts" can argue all they like.....however, they know the real reason and cannot do or say anything.....this is just stupid spin from them in an effort to appear relevant. 

Pita and his party were never going to rule....reform was never going to be allowed.

It never made any sense that a point of parliamentary procedure would be decided by a vote of the members, anyway - that should be the responsibility of the house speaker, or parliamentarian. 

Whatever they do to Pita and MFP to stop them might come back to bite them at the next election in 5 years.

By then MFP or what ever new party they form might not only have PIta campaigning for change, but also Thanathorn, whose ban from politics should be expired.

 

Imagine those two together, pushing the "Remember how we were cheated last time narrative".

 

 

Thai "law" is very flexible, and can be applied as needed.

 

The police, ministry of "justice", prosecutors and the courts all have an inherent bias. 

 

 

There is little transparency, and one cannot criticize the "courts".

 

 

That said Speaker Wan Noor should resign. He's clearly not up to the job. He can stay on as an advisor to the new Speaker.

I'm wondering why this isn't nailed down already.  It should be black and white with no questions at this point if this is correct or that is correct.  The CC should make itself useful for once and make a definitive ruling--it's bound to come up in future elections.