Constitutional Court, "Ruangkrai" petitions the Constitutional Court to rule on the Prime Minister's announcement of a policy of not disclosing income, contrary to the Constitution, Section 162.
Mr. Rueangkrai Leekitwattana, a member of the Phalang Pracharat Party, revealed that today (8 Nov.) he went to submit the petition himself. Ask the Constitutional Court to decide on the case of Mr. Settha Thavisin, Prime Minister, making a policy statement to Parliament. without explaining the source of income It is an act that violates Section 162 of the Constitution and cannot be enforced according to Section 5 because the Ombudsman sent a letter dated 27 Oct. 2023 to him, with part of the content stating that If you see yourself as someone whose rights or freedoms have been directly violated and have suffered or suffered damage or there may be suffering or damage that is unavoidable due to the violation of those rights or freedoms. They have the right to submit a complaint directly to the Constitutional Court in accordance with the Organic Act on Constitutional Court Procedure 2018, Section 46, within 90 days from the date of receipt of this letter.
Mr. Rueangkrai said that the Prime Minister Statement of policy to parliament Not explaining the source of income He is of the view that such action causes him to lose his right to know and access information or news regarding the source of such income. This is according to the rights provided by the Constitution, Section 41 (1). Therefore, he used his rights under the Constitution, Section 213, to submit a petition requesting the Constitutional Court to consider and decide on 3 points as follows: 1. The Prime Minister's policy statement. Economics towards Parliament which did not explain the source of income that would be used to pay for implementing the policy It is an action that goes against or contradicts Section 162 of the Constitution. 2. Statement of the said policy. causing one's rights or freedoms to be directly violated and has suffered or been damaged or there may be trouble or damage that cannot be avoided According to the Constitution, Section 41(1) and 3. The said policy statement It is unenforceable. According to the Constitution, Section 5, paragraph one
Mr. Rueangkrai said, therefore, we must continue to wait and see the Constitutional Court's decision on all 3 of his requests. How will the court decide?
Source: Thai News Agency