Constitutional Court declines to define ‘evident integrity’

The Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a request from the Cabinet to establish criteria for selecting politicians with "evident integrity" to hold ministerial or political positions.

The court ruled by an 8:1 vote that the request did not involve a dispute over authority among political bodies but was instead a consultation sought by the Cabinet.

Court Declines to Set Guidelines

The court stated that it only deliberates on cases that have already occurred, reinforcing that the Cabinet has the authority to select political appointees without requiring the court’s input.

Last year, the Constitutional Court removed Srettha Thavisin as prime minister for lacking "evident integrity" under Article 160 (4) of the Constitution. The ruling stemmed from his appointment of Pichit Chuenban as a PM’s Office Minister, despite Pichit’s previous conviction by the Supreme Court for attempting to bribe court officials—a violation of Article 160 (1).

After Paetongtarn Shinawatra succeeded Srettha as the prIme minister, her Cabinet tasked PM’s Office Minister Chusak Sirinil with seeking clarification from the Constitutional Court on how to determine a person’s "evident integrity" for ministerial appointments. The request also asked the court to establish guidelines for selecting Cabinet members based on Articles 160 (4), (5), and (7).

Constitutional Provisions on Ministerial Integrity

Article 160 of the Constitution states that a minister must:

(4) Possess evident integrity.

(5) Not engage in behaviour that seriously violates ethical standards.

(7) Not have been sentenced to imprisonment, regardless of whether the sentence is final or suspended—except in cases of negligence, petty offences, or defamation.

Chusak’s appeal also sought clarification on Article 9(5) of the Political Appointees Act, which requires that ministers "must not be persons who lack good morality."

Court’s Justification for Rejection

The appeal was submitted under Article 210 (2) of the Constitution, which grants the Constitutional Court the authority:

"(2) To consider and adjudicate on questions regarding the duties and powers of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, or Independent Organs."

However, the court ruled that the request did not fall under Article 210 (2), as it was not a dispute over authority but merely a consultation request from the Cabinet.