Constitutional Court defers decision on petition from ombudsmen
The Constitutional Court on Thursday deferred its decision on whether to accept for judicial review a petition by the three ombudsmen that questioned the constitutionality of a parliamentary resolution blocking the Move Forward Party from nominating its candidate for prime minister a second time.
The ombudsmen were told to clarify the status of the three complainants cited in the petition, and submit the clarification to the court by August 15, the court announced on its website.
After receiving clarification from the ombudsmen, the Constitutional Court will meet at 7.30pm on August 19 to consider whether or not it will accept the petition for a judicial review, it said.
The ombudsmen’s request for an injunction to suspend the next round of voting for a prime minister will also be considered after the court makes a decision on the petition.
Parliament President Wan Muhammad Noor Matha postponed the next round of voting from last week until Friday in expectation that the court would have made its decision on the petition before the vote.
After the court deferred its decision, Wan Noor issued an urgent announcement to MPs and senators that the next vote for PM would be postponed until the court issues a decision on the petition.
On July 20, senators and MPs from partners of the outgoing coalition united to vote that voting for prime minister falls under Article 41 of the parliamentary meeting regulations. It says that a motion that has already been rejected by Parliament cannot be resubmitted in the same session unless the meeting decides certain situations have changed.
The resolution prevented Move Forward PM candidate Pita Limjaroenrat from being nominated a second time and, as a result, the second round of voting for Thailand’s next premier did not take place.
On July 24, the three ombudsmen voted unanimously to seek the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the legality of the parliamentary resolution.
In their decision, they said that Article 41 of the meeting regulations should have an inferior status to Articles 159 and 272 of the charter that sanctioned the PM vote.
The petition from the ombudsmen stated that it was made based on two complaints by Assoc Professor Pornchai Theppanya, Asst Professor Boonsong Chalethorn, and Move Forward MP Panyarat Nanthapusitanont, and a third by a “group of complainants”.
The court said the petition had identified the status of the three named complainants, but it failed to identify the complainants in the third group. Everyone in the third group must be identified before the court can consider the petition, it said.
The court said the ombudsmen submitted an additional petition on July 27, which has key points regarding the democratic system with the King as head of the state. The court said it needed more time to consider the additional petition, but did not elaborate.
