Constitutional Court of Thailand

The Constitutional Court, officially the Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand, is a Thai court created by the 1997 constitution with jurisdiction over the constitutionality of parliamentary acts, royal decrees, draft legislation, as well as the appointment and removal of public officials and issues regarding political parties. The current court is part of the judicial branch of the Thai national government.
The court, along with the 1997 constitution, was dissolved and replaced by a Constitutional Tribunal in 2006 following the 2006 Thai coup d'état. While the Constitutional Court had [|15 members], seven from the judiciary and eight selected by a special panel, the Constitution Tribunal had [|nine members], all from the judiciary. A similar institution, consisting of nine members, was again established by the 2007 Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has provoked much public debate, both regarding the court's jurisdiction and composition as well as the initial selection of justices. A long-standing issue has been the degree of control exerted by the judiciary over the court.
The decisions of the court are final and not subject to appeal. Its decisions bind every state organ, including the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, and other courts.
The various iterations of the court have made several significant decisions. These include:

The 1999 decision that Newin Chidchop, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, could retain his seat in cabinet after being sentenced to imprisonment for defamation.
The 2001 acquittal of Thaksin Shinawatra for filing an incomplete statement regarding his assets with the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
The 2003 invalidation of Jaruvan Maintaka's appointment as auditor-general.
The 2007 dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai political party.
The 2014 removal of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra from office.
The dissolution of the Thai Raksa Chart Party before the March 2019 election.
The dissolution of the Future Forward Party in 2020 and its successor Move Forward Party in 2024.
The removal of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin in 2024 and his successor Paetongtarn Shinawatra in 2025.

The FY2019 budget of the Constitutional Court is 223.7 million Baht., its president is Nakharin Mektrairat.

Origins and controversy

Drafting of the 1997 constitution

The creation of the Constitutional Court was the subject of much debate during the 1996–1997 drafting of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand. Senior judges opposed the concept on the grounds that constitutional and judicial review should remain a prerogative of the Supreme Court and that a Constitutional Court would create a fourth branch of government more powerful than the judiciary, legislature, or executive. Judges stated their fear over political interference in the selection and impeachment of judges. The Constitution Drafting Assembly eventually made several concessions regarding the composition and powers of the court.

Jurisdiction

The constitution did not give the Constitutional Court the authority to overrule a final judgment of the Supreme Court. An affected party, or a court, could request the opinion from the Constitutional Court if it believed a case involved a constitutional issue. The court where the initial action was pending would stay its proceedings until the Constitutional Court issued its decision. Constitutional court decisions would have no retroactive effect on previous decisions of the regular courts.
The constitution also did not give the Constitutional Court the authority to rule on any case in which the constitution did not specifically delegate an agency the power to adjudicate.

Impeachment

The constitution allowed individual justices to be the subject of impeachment proceedings with the vote of one-fourth of the members of the House or with the approval of 50,000 petitioners. A vote of three-fifths of the Senate is required for impeachment. Earlier drafts had required votes of only 10% of the combined House and Senate to call for a vote of impeachment, and votes of three-fifths of the combined Parliament of Thailand to dismiss a justice.

Appointment

The constitution gave the judiciary a strong influence over the composition of the Constitutional Court. Originally, the court was to have nine justices including six legal experts and three political science experts. A panel of 17 persons would propose 18 names from which parliament would elect the nine justices. The panel president would be the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand, the panel itself would have included four political party representatives. The CDA finally compromised and allowed seven of the justices to be selected by the judiciary, while the remaining eight justices would be selected by the Senate from a list of Supreme Court nominees.

Appointment of the first Constitutional Court

The appointment of the first Constitutional Court following the promulgation of the constitution in 1997 was four month controversy pitting the Senate of Thailand against the Supreme Court. A key issue was the senate's authority to review the backgrounds of judicial nominees and reject nominees deemed inappropriate or unqualified.

Appointment of Amphorn Thongprayoon

After receiving the Supreme Court's list of nominees, the Senate created a committee to review the nominees' credentials and backgrounds. On 24 November 1997, the Senate voted to remove the name of Supreme Court Vice-president Amphorn Thongprayoon, on the grounds that his credentials were dubious and on allegations that he had defaulted on three million Baht in debt. The Supreme Court was furious, arguing the constitution did not empower the senate to do background checks or to reject Supreme Court nominees. The Supreme Court requested a ruling from the Constitutional Tribunal chaired by the House speaker. On 8 January 1998, in a six to three vote, the Tribunal ruled the Senate did not have the authority to do background checks or reject the Supreme Court's nominees. The Tribunal ruled that the Senate's review powers were limited to examining the records of the nominees and electing half of those nominees for appointment.
Immediately after the Supreme Court filed its request to the Tribunal, Justice Amphorn withdrew his name. After the Tribunal's ruling, the Supreme Court elected justice Jumpol na Songkhla on 9 January 1998 to replace Amphorn. The Senate ignored the Tribunal's ruling and proceeded to review Jumphol's background and delayed a vote to accept his nomination for seven days so that the Senate could evaluate Jumphol. Finding no problems, the Senate acknowledged his appointment to the court on 23 January 1998.

Appointment of Ukrit Mongkolnavin

The appointment of former Senate and Parliament president Ukrit Mongkolnavin was especially problematic. The Senate had initially elected Ukrit from the list of ten legal specialists nominated by the selection panel, despite claims by democracy activists that Ukrit was unqualified to guard the constitution because he had served dictators while president of parliament under the 1991–1992 military government of the National Peacekeeping Council.
Stung by the Senate rejection of Amphorn Thongprayoon, the two Bangkok Civil Court judges, Sriampron Salikhup and Pajjapol Sanehasangkhom, petitioned the Constitutional Tribunal to disqualify Ukrit on a legal technicality. They argued that Ukrit only had an honorary professorship at Chulalongkorn University, while the 1997 constitution specifically specifies that a nominee, if not meeting other criteria, must be at least a professor. Echoing the Senate's rejection of Amphorn, the judges also alleged that Ukrit was involved in a multi-million baht lawsuit over a golf course. On 10 January 1998, the Tribunal ruled that the judges were not affected parties and therefore they had no right to request a ruling. Nevertheless, the parliament's president invoked his power as chairman of the tribunal to ask the Senate to reconsider Ukrit's nomination.
On 19 January 1998, the Senate reaffirmed Ukrit's qualifications, noting that his professorship was special only because he was not a government official. Under Chulalongkorn's regulations, he had the academic status of a full professor.
This position inflamed activists and the judiciary, and prompted the parliament president on 21 January to invoke his authority under Article 266 of the 1997 Constitution to order the Constitutional Tribunal to consider the issue. On 8 February, in a four to three vote, the tribunal ruled that Ukrit's special professorship did not qualify him for a seat on the Constitutional Court. The tribunal noted that Chulalongkorn's criteria for honorary professorship were different from its criteria for academic professors, as intended by the Constitution. The Senate ended up electing Komain Patarapirom to replace Ukrit.

Jurisdiction

Under the 2007 Constitution, the court is competent to address the following:

#	Matters	Sections of the constitution allowing their institution	Eligible petitioners	Type
1	A petition for a decision as to whether a resolution or regulation of a political party to which the petitioner belongs is contrary to his status and functions as representative, or is contrary to the fundamental principles of the democratic regime of government with the King of Thailand as head of state	Section 65, paragraph 3	A member of the political party in question	Political party
2	A petition for a decision as to whether any person or political party exercises the constitutional rights and freedoms to undermine the democratic regime of government with the King as head of state, or to acquire the national government power by the means not recognised by the Constitution	Section 68	Any person	Constitutional defence
3	A petition for a decision as to whether any representative or Senator loses his membership by operation of the Constitution	Section 91	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or senators	Membership
4	A petition for a decision as to whether a political party resolution terminating any representative's membership in the party is contrary to his status and functions as representative, or is contrary to the fundamental principles of the democratic regime of government with the King as head of state	Section 106	The representative in question	Political party
5	A petition for a decision concerning the constitutionality of a draft organic act having been approved by the National Assembly of Thailand	Section 141	The National Assembly	Constitutionality of draft law
6	A petition for a decision as to whether a draft organic act or act introduced by the council of ministers or representatives bears the principle identical or similar to that which needs to be suppressed	Sections 140 and 149	The president of the House of Representatives or Senate	Constitutionality of draft law
7	A petition for a decision as to whether # a bill having been approved by the National Assembly by virtue of section 150 but having not yet been submitted to the king by the prime minister, # or a bill having been reapproved by the National Assembly but having not yet been resubmitted to the King by the prime minister, : is unconstitutional, or whether its enactment was in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution	Section 154	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or senators The prime minister	Constitutionality of draft law
8	A petition for a decision as to whether the draft rules of order of the House of Representatives, the draft rules of order of the Senate, or the draft rules of order of the National Assembly, which have been approved by the House of Representatives, Senate or National Assembly but have not yet been published in the Government Gazette, are unconstitutional, or whether their enactment was in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution	Section 155	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or senators The prime minister	Constitutionality of draft law
9	A petition for a decision as to whether any motion, motion amendment or action introduced during the House of Representatives, Senate or committee proceedings for consideration of a draft bill on annual expenditure budget, additional expenditure budget or expenditure budget transfer, would allow a representative, Senator or committee member to directly or indirectly be involved in the disbursement of such budget	Section 168, paragraph 7	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or senators	Others
10	A petition for a decision as to whether any minister individually loses his ministership	Section 182	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or Senators The Election Commission	Membership
11	A petition for a decision as to whether an emergency decree is enacted against section 184, paragraph 1 or 2, of the Constitution	Section 185	At least one-fifth of the existing representatives or senators	Constitutionality of law
12	A petition for a decision as to whether any "written agreement" to be concluded by the executive branch requires prior parliamentary approval because it contains a provision which would bring about a change in the Thai territory or the extraterritorial areas over which Thailand is competent to exercise sovereignty or jurisdiction by virtue of a written agreement or international law, its execution requires the enactment of an act, it would extensively affect national economic or social security, or it would considerably bind national trade, investment or budget	Section 190	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or senators	Authority
13	A petition for a decision as to whether a legal provision to be applied to any case by a court of justice, administrative court or military court is unconstitutional	Section 211	A party to such case	Constitutionality of law
14	A petition for a decision as to the constitutionality of a legal provision	Section 212	Any person whose constitutionally recognised right or freedom has been violated	Constitutionality of law
15	A petition for a decision as to a conflict of authority between the National Assembly, the Council of ministers, or two or more constitutional organs other than the courts of justice, administrative courts or military courts	Section 214	The president of the National Assembly The prime minister The organs in question	Authority
16	A petition for a decision as to whether any election commissioner lacks a qualification, is attacked by a disqualification or has committed a prohibited act	Section 233	At least one-tenth of the existing representatives or senators	Membership
17	A petition for dissolution of a political party deemed to have attempted to acquire the national government power by the means not recognised by the Constitution, and disfranchisement of its leader and executive members	Section 237 in conjunction with section 68	Any person	Political party
18	A petition for a decision as to the constitutionality of any legal provision	Section 245	Ombudsmen	Constitutionality of law
19	A petition for a decision as to the constitutionality of any legal provision on grounds of human rights	Section 257, paragraph 1	The National Human Rights Commission	Constitutionality of law
20	Other matters permitted by legal provisions			Others