Constitutional Court Dismisses Reserve Senators’ Appeal on Status of 92 Senators

Bangkok: The Constitutional Court has dismissed the appeal from a group of reserve senators seeking a decision on the status of 92 senators. The court determined that the group lacked the standing to file the appeal and did not present any new evidence.

According to Thai News Agency, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided not to accept the petition submitted by Pol. Lt. Gen. Kamrob Panyakaew and his group. They claimed their status as a group under the Organic Act on the Procedure of the Constitutional Court B.E. 2561, Section 41, granted them the right to file a petition under Section 7 (5) of the same law. Their appeal sought to challenge the Constitutional Court Order No. 51/2568, which had previously dismissed a petition regarding the Senate membership of Pol. Maj. Gen. Chatwat Saengphet and others. The group requested the court to suspend the duties of the defendants until a decision was made.

The court highlighted that the petition's nature was akin to one under Section 82 of the Constitution, which only allows petitions from at least one-tenth of the House of Representatives or senators, or the Election Commission, to be submitted to the Constitutional Court. Additionally, the appeal against the court's order was not supported by the Constitution or the Organic Act on the Procedure of the Constitutional Court B.E. 2561, which does not provide for appeals against its decisions or orders.

The petitioners argued that they were not filing under Section 82 of the Constitution but were invoking their status under Section 41 of the Organic Act on the Procedure of the Constitutional Court B.E. 2561. They contended this allowed them to file a petition under Section 7 (5) to request a ruling on the termination of the senators' membership. However, the court found that the provisions cited did not grant the petitioners the right to file such a petition, as Section 41 requires a legal basis in the Constitution or other laws, which was not evident in this case. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioners could not pursue their appeal through this legal avenue.