Constitution Court to decide Yongyuth's fate

One side argues that Yongyuth should keep his Cabinet seat and MP status because he has already been pardoned by the 2007 Act, while the Opposition says he is not eligible for it because he was punished after the Act was enacted and committed the wrongdoing well before 2007.
The side supporting Yongyuth cited two previous cases to back its call for leniency, but upon studying these cases, The Nation has learned that they are very different from Yongyuth’s case.
The first case, cited by the Interior Ministry, was based on the 1983 Exoneration Act.
In 1983, the Interior Ministry asked the Council of State if officials of the civil-service committee that decided to fire certain officials before the 1983 Act was enacted, but issued the firing orders after the Act came into effect, would be exonerated? The Council of State replied that the officials in question were entitled to leniency.
However, this example does not apply to Yongyuth because the Interior Ministry’s Civil Service Committee did not decide to expel Yongyuth before the 2007 Act was enacted, but only decided to expel him on September 14 this year.
The second case cited was that of Science Minister Plodprasob Surassawadee, who was also granted amnesty based on the 2007 Act.
As per a letter written to the PM by Civil Service Commission secretary-general Nonthikorn Kanchanajitra, Plodprasob was granted amnesty under Article 6 of the 2007 Act, but Yongyuth’s case falls under Article 5.
As per Article 6, an official who commits disciplinary offences will not face additional disciplinary action or penalties if his or her supervisor decides to terminate the case or drop the penalties before or on the same day the 2007 Act was enacted.
Plodprasob faced disciplinary probe for letting the Sri Racha Tiger Zoo send 100 tigers to China while he was director-general of the Royal Forest Department. The disciplinary panel, led by Tiphawadee Meksawan, concluded that Plodprasob did not commit any disciplinary offence and later, then-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, ordered that the case be dismissed.
However, the case was later investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission and it concluded on August 9, 2007, that Plodprasob had indeed committed severe disciplinary offence. Then the civil-service panel at the PM’s Office decided on December 13, 2007 to expel Plodprasob from the Royal Forest Department retroactively and then-PM Surayud Chulanond signed an order on December 15, 2007, firing him from government service.
“At the time, the Act had only just come into being and initially some people said Plodprasob was eligible to pardon as per Article 5, but later his case benefited from Article 6,” a source close to the Science Minister said.
Meanwhile, the side opposing Yongyuth’s exoneration cited the case of Pol Maj-General Piraphan Premputi, former secretary-general of the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO), and his deputy Pol Colonel Sihanart Prayoonrat. The two faced disciplinary probe for unlawfully investigating personal banking transactions of about 200 journalists, members of non-governmental organisations and opposition politicians.
NACC commissioner Wicha Mahakhun said this case was similar to that of Plodprasob’s because the two AMLO members were granted leniency under Article 6 of the 2007 Act because a disciplinary panel concluded that the two had not done anything wrong, and Thaksin dismissed the case in 2002.
Then on August 30, 2009, NACC concluded that Piraphan and Sihanart had committed malfeasance, as well as criminal and disciplinary offences. However, they could not be punished because they had been exonerated by the 2007 Act.
Despite the many theories, the final say in Yongyuth’s case still lies with the Constitution Court.