Cabinet defense not enough, says court

The Constitutional Court dismissed a cabinet motion on Wednesday seeking a court interpretation of the term, “a lack of clear honesty”, saying the request was about a matter of legal interpretation and therefore was not among cases that met the criteria for a review.

The petition submitted by Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office Chousak Sirinil on behalf of the cabinet addressed Section 160 of the constitution and Section 9 of the Holders of Political Positions Act.

Know-how section 160 of the charter outlines the qualifications required to become a cabinet minister and political office-holder. It also says ministers must have clear integrity and must not have committed serious wrongdoing.

The Holders of Political Positions Act requires these individuals to have moral standards in accordance with Section 9.

The cabinet’s petition is widely believed to have been prompted by the removal last August of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister by the Constitutional Court over an ethical violation in connection with his appointment of former convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister.

That ruling said the prime minister must use sound judgement when advising the crown on cabinet ministers for royal approval.

Section 210 of the charter and the organic law on Procedures of the Constitutional Court empower the court itself to rule on cases concerning the roles and powers of the House of Representatives, the Senate, parliament, the cabinet or public independent agencies.

On Wednesday, the court said that any request for a ruling must not only directly concern the duties and powers prescribed in the constitution but that any petition submitted must have a dispute that has already occurred.

It said the petition by the cabinet was only seeking an interpretation and clarification of constitutional provisions and not a determination of a dispute over a task and powers and therefore did not fall under the jurisdiction for a judicial review.

The court, by a vote of 8 to 1, rejected the petition, according to a statement, with the lone dissenting judge referred to in the notice as Udom Sitthiwirattham, who said the petition had met the criteria necessary for it to be taken into account.

Earlier, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra had said that the request for the court’s interpretation had nothing to do with any possible cabinet reshuffle, but added that the government wanted to avoid any future complaints relating to ethical violations.

After Mr Srettha was ousted, some analysts suggested that she could also be targeted under Section 160.