Rewind 4 cases of “Big Tu”, freed from the snare of the Constitutional Court, expecting the prime minister for 8 years, up or down?

In the next few hours We already know the results for sure.”Prime Minister“The 29th person in Thailand will still be named”General Prayut Chan-ocha” Are you there or not at 3:00 p.m. Constitutional Courtwill make an appointment to read the judgment in the caseSpeaker of the House of Representatives Submit a request for “opposition” in order to determine the status of holding office “Prime Minister” of “General Prayut”

will end accordinglyconstitutionYear 2017, section 158, paragraph four, cases Holding office for 8 years Since the inauguration of the Prime Minister for the first time when “Head of the NCPO” August 24, 2014 and due on August 24, 2022, which has passed regarding a month or so?

However, previously General Prayut There have been cases filed in the Constitutional Court. In order to diagnose at least 4 cases (excluding the case of the Prime Minister for 8 years), all cases are “free of snare”, escaped from all accusations

Starting from the case of the status of the NCPO-Prime Minister, starting from the members of the opposition party, including 7 parties, named “Chuan Leekpai”, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. to submit an application to the Constitutional Court Determine the status of the Prime Minister’s position General Prayut whether it ends individually under the Constitution, Section 170, paragraph 1 (4), in conjunction with Section 160 (6) and Section 98 (15) or not from the case of Gen. Prayut Was the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) considered to be another government official?

But the Constitutional Court Read the ruling on September 18, 2019 that Gen. Prayut As the Head of the NCPO, he is not considered a “other government official” under Section 160 (6) in conjunction with Section 98 (15) due to General Prayut’s position as the Head of the NCPO on 22 May. C. 2014 Not under the supervision of the state. and have specific temporary powers Therefore, the prime ministership does not end.

Later, the case of the oath of allegiance was not complete. There is a starting point from the first “Sak Phak” battle of “Big Tu 2 Cabinet”, led by Pol. Gen. Sereepisuth Temeiwes, a list of MPs. and the leader of the Seri Ruam Thai Party distrust debate General Prayut accused of violating the Constitution In the case of incomplete oath of allegiance according to the provisions of the Constitution The debate was very fierce. until the legendary quarrel “Cut brother cut sister” between “Gen. Prayut” and “Pol. Gen. Sereepisuth” in the past.

After that, a complaint was filed with the Ombudsman. to submit the matter to the Constitutional Court to determine that In the event that the oath of allegiance is incomplete General Prayut Not in accordance with the Constitution, Section 161, contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution, Section 5, paragraph one?

Finally, on February 11, 2020, the Constitutional Court voted “unanimously” to reject the petition, stating that devoting allegiance to the King was a political act. As a constitutional organization, the executive branch in relation to the King is within the meaning of the government’s actions in accordance with the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. therefore unable to accept the request and such devotion is not within the scrutiny power of any constitutional organization.

At the same time as the distrust of the debate. “Big Tu Cabinet” in the beginning of 2020 with the opposition parties led by the Pheu Thai Party Submit an application to the President of the House of Representatives to submit a request to the Constitutional Court In order to determine the status of Prime Minister of “Big Tu” once more, in the case, Gen. Prayut is still staying at the “Baan Luang” in the army camp, while the retired commander-in-chief of the Army. Since 2014, it is considered a conflict of interest. According to the constitution, section 184 (3), in conjunction with section 186 and is liable to a serious breach of ethical standards?

On this issue on December 2, 2020, the Constitutional Court passed a “unanimous” resolution once more that the status of Prime Minister of “Big Tu” does not end individually. and does not engage in behavior that violates or does not comply with serious ethical standards by explaining the reason that Because the military residence has changed its status to a hospice. According to the Army Regulations on staying in the Royal Thai Army Hospital, B.E. 2548

which designated the former high command of the Army who have made benefits to the Army and the country and have been in command of the Royal Thai Army in the past, have the right to stay in the Royal Thai Army Whereas the Army can consider the suitability of supporting water and electricity bills and other expenses necessary for the stay as necessary and appropriate. which is not only the Prime Minister But the Army has also supported other former commanders.

The karma of “Big Tu” is still not over. During the past year, 72 MPs from “Phuea Thai Party” submitted a petition to “Chuan Leekpai” once more to submit a request to the Constitutional Court. to determine the status of the Prime Minister of General Prayut terminated exclusively under the Constitution, Section 170 (5), in conjunction with Section 184 (2) and Section 186 in the case of an order under “Section 44” in April 2019 to extend the Green Line concession to the private sector for 40 years while the remaining concession period is 10 years. Meanwhile, the joint venture law was announced in March 2019, but it did not comply. resulting in a monopoly on the project and no fair competition

But “Big Tu” escaped the accusation once more for the 4th time when the Constitutional Court passed a resolution “not accepting the request” for ruling, arguing that The provisions of the Constitution relating to the status of a minister are terminated individually under Section 170 paragraph one (5) in conjunction with Section 186 paragraph one and Section 184 paragraph one (2) with the intent to apply to persons holding ministerial positions. not to act which is prohibited while holding the position of Minister If any Minister performs any prohibited act while he is in the position of Minister That person’s ministership must come to an end.

Therefore, filing a petition under Section 170, paragraph three, in conjunction with Section 82 for the Constitutional Court to decide the status of a minister. ends only that It must be the case that the respondent holds the ministerial position at the time the applicant submits the petition to the Constitutional Court. When the facts according to the request appear that

While the applicant submits a petition to the Constitutional Court to consider and decide that the respondent’s status as a minister has been terminated individually under Section 170 paragraph three in conjunction with Section 82, the respondent has vacated the position of Prime Minister under Section 264 of the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution. from the date of the new Council of Ministers established following the first general election under the Constitution takes office The petitioner is unable to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for a decision under Section 170 paragraph three in conjunction with Section 82.

All of these are 4 cases where the name “Big Tu” has been filed to be dismissed from the prime minister’s chair in the Constitutional Court. Keep an eye on the 5th case, sitting in the chair for 8 years, will be issued “Moo” or “General”. Let’s follow together!