Court Dismisses Thai Cabinet's Plea for Clarification on Minister Ethics

[webfact]

Picture courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

Thailand's Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition from the cabinet seeking clarity on "a lack of clear honesty" under current legal frameworks. The petition was rejected on Wednesday on the grounds that it pertained to legal interpretation, thus not meeting the criteria for judicial review.

 

The plea, initiated by Prime Minister's Office Minister Chousak Sirinil on the cabinet's behalf, sought elucidation of Section 160 of the constitution and Section 9 of the Holders of Political Positions Act. These sections dictate the ethical and moral standards required of cabinet ministers and other political office-holders, mandating clear honesty and the absence of serious ethical breaches.

 

Linkages have been drawn between this petition and Thailand's former Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin's removal from office by the Constitutional Court last August. His ousting followed an ethical violation involving the contentious appointment of Pichit Chuenban, a former convict, as a cabinet minister. The court had previously emphasised the importance of sound judgement in ministerial appointments for royal approval.

 

The court retains authority to adjudicate on matters involving constitutional roles and powers vested in the governmental and legislative branches, as per Section 210 of the constitution.

However, it specified that petitions must relate to an existing dispute over constitutional duties and powers. In the cabinet's case, the court found the petition to be a mere request for interpretation rather than resolution of a specific disagreement, leading to its rejection.

 

The ruling, decided by an 8-1 majority, saw only one dissenting voice from Judge Udom Sitthiwirattham, who argued that the petition met the necessary criteria for examination.

 

Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra had earlier clarified the cabinet’s request was not connected to any anticipated cabinet reshuffle but was a preventative measure against potential future ethical complaints.

 

Following Mr. Srettha's removal, there has been speculation that Section 160 might be wielded against the current cabinet under similar ethical scrutiny. The court's decision to reject the plea highlights the judiciary's stance on maintaining the distinction between legal interpretation and judicial review scope, upholding the procedural safeguards embedded in Thailand's constitutional framework, reported Bangkok Post.

 

-- 2025-03-13