21-7-2023 (BANGKOK) Legal experts are now questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary resolution that rejected the renomination of Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the Move Forward Party (MFP), for the position of Prime Minister. As the issue gains traction, calls have been made to bring the matter before the Constitutional Court for a definitive ruling.
Borwornsak Uwanno, the former chair of a constitution drafting committee, took to Facebook to express his disapproval of the parliamentary resolution, asserting that the Constitutional Court must intervene to scrutinize the situation. He pointed out that invoking a parliamentary session regulation had implications for the constitution, despite the charter’s explicit provisions for the prime ministerial election. He expressed his disappointment with MPs who voted against Mr. Pita’s renomination.
Mr. Uwanno highlighted that the interpretation provided by parliament was not the final verdict. He emphasized that any individual who believed their rights were affected by this matter could seek recourse through the Ombudsman. This could determine whether the parliamentary resolution violated Section 213 of the constitution, seemingly referring to Mr. Pita’s case.
The affected party has the option to submit a petition to the Ombudsman, who would then forward it to the Constitutional Court for review. If the Ombudsman does not act on the petition, the affected person can directly approach the court to seek resolution.
Jade Donavanik, a legal scholar and former adviser to a charter drafting panel, voiced his view that Mr. Pita’s nomination on July 13 did not qualify as a motion, and thus Regulation No.41 should not have been applied.
Khomsan Phokhong, a law lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, pointed out that Regulation No.41 could only be waived if new factors were introduced. For instance, if new candidates were nominated alongside Mr. Pita in the next round of voting, the circumstances would change, potentially permitting his renomination.
Sen Seree Suwanpanont, a former constitution drafter, responded to Mr. Uwanno’s stance, asserting that hundreds of MPs and senators were in agreement that Mr. Pita’s renomination was not permissible under the parliamentary meeting regulation. Consequently, they voted against his second bid for prime minister.
Meanwhile, MFP secretary-general Chaithawat Tulathon revealed that he held discussions with key figures from the Pheu Thai party to chart a path forward for the formation of a new government. He emphasized their commitment to successfully establishing a government comprising all eight coalition partners.
Regarding Pheu Thai’s possible nomination of candidate Srettha Thavisin for the next round of Prime Ministerial voting, Mr. Chaithawat stated that the MFP would address the matter in a meeting of MPs and party executives. He also addressed comments made by Mr. Srettha opposing any changes to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, stating that there had been no discussions with Pheu Thai yet. He anticipated clarity on various matters after the forthcoming meeting among the coalition allies.
