People’s Party and Bhumjaithai relieved as Constitutional Court throws out MOA case,

The Constitutional Court on November 3, 2025, unanimously rejected two petitions that sought to have the People’s Party (PPC) and the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) declared in violation of Article 49 of the Constitution for signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) aimed at supporting Anutin Charnvirakul as prime minister.

The complainants alleged that the MOA allowed opposition parties to exercise “hidden executive power”, thus distorting Thailand’s democratic system and subverting the constitutional monarchy. The Court, however, ruled that the agreement represented only a joint political declaration and found no clear evidence that the arrangement sought to overthrow the constitutional order.

Background of the complaint

The first case, No. 29/2025, was filed by Khongdecha Chairat, who invoked Article 49 of the Constitution. He alleged that Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, leader of the People’s Party and Opposition Leader (respondent 2), together with 143 PPC MPs (respondent 3), had agreed to divide and distort sovereign power by allowing the opposition to exercise influence over matters reserved for the executive branch.

He argued that such an arrangement weakened the system of checks and balances between the legislature and the executive, enabling the opposition to exert indirect control over government policy. This, he said, undermined the spirit of democracy and violated fundamental constitutional principles.

According to the petition, the People’s Party had agreed to transfer its parliamentary votes to any party that would adopt its policies once in government. The MOA specifically called for the House of Representatives to be dissolved within four months of the government’s policy statement to Parliament, followed by a referendum on constitutional amendment and the drafting of a new charter by an elected constitutional assembly.

Subsequently, Natthapong and Anutin, as party leaders, signed the MOA to formalise their cooperation. During the parliamentary vote for prime minister, PPC MPs voted in line with the agreement to endorse Anutin Charnvirakul as premier, while the PPC remained in opposition.

The complainant claimed this arrangement effectively gave the opposition a concealed hand in the executive branch, violating Article 49 of the Constitution.

Attorney General’s review

The case was first submitted to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), which ruled that the actions of the respondents did not constitute an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime with the King as Head of State under Article 49 (paragraph one).

The OAG found no basis to proceed and therefore declined to forward the case to the Constitutional Court under Article 49 (paragraph two).

Court’s ruling on Case No. 29/2025

After deliberation, the Constitutional Court ruled that the MOA between Natthapong and Anutin amounted only to political negotiation and shared intent, lacking evidence that the respondents used their rights or freedoms to subvert the constitutional monarchy.

The Court found the claims inconsistent with both the criteria and procedure outlined in Article 49 and unanimously decided not to accept the petition for consideration.

Second petition (Case No. 30/2025)

A separate petition was filed by Akkharawat Phongthanachalitkuun, arguing that the same MOA gave the Bhumjaithai leader and his allies unlawful access to executive power through a political agreement.
He alleged that the arrangement violated Articles 114 and 185 of the Constitution by subjecting MPs to binding mandates and prearranged benefits that compromised their independence.

The petitioner claimed that the deal amounted to political interference, granting power or benefit to certain individuals and political parties contrary to constitutional principles. He therefore asked the Attorney General to submit the case to the Constitutional Court. When no action was taken within 15 days, he filed the petition directly with the Court.

Court’s ruling on Case No. 30/2025

Upon review, the Constitutional Court again found that the MOA between Natthapong and Anutin reflected only a joint political understanding. There was no factual or evidentiary basis to show that the respondents—four in total—had used their rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system with the King as Head of State.

The Court therefore issued a unanimous ruling to reject the petition, citing insufficient grounds under Article 49.