The Constitutional Court unanimously decided not to accept Lt. Col. Ratchet's petition alleging that the MOA between the Prachachon Party and Bhumjaithai Party violated the constitution and seriously breached ethical standards.
On 4 Feb 2026 GMT+7, the Constitutional Court Office published its case review regarding Lt. Col. Ratchet Jangjamras's petition requesting the court to rule under Section 213 of the Constitution (Case No. Tor. 7/2569). The petitioner alleged that on 3 Sept 2025 GMT+7, Mr. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut (the respondent) and Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party, jointly signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The petitioner claimed this MOA violated or conflicted with constitutional Sections 114, 144, 168, and 185; constituted misconduct; and seriously breached ethical standards, thus causing the respondents’ parliamentary membership to terminate under Section 101 of the Constitution and violating Criminal Code Section 157.
After deliberation, the Constitutional Court considered the matter and found that the facts and supporting documents did not show the petitioner’s rights or freedoms protected by the Constitution were violated due to the respondents’ actions. The petitioner’s claims were merely personal opinions as a citizen concerning issues with the MOA. The case did not comply with the criteria, procedures, and conditions stipulated in the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018), Section 46, paragraph one. Therefore, the petitioner could not file this petition under Section 213 of the Constitution.
Regarding the petitioner’s request for the court to determine whether the respondents’ actions constituted serious ethical violations causing termination of parliamentary membership, the court noted that the Constitution and related laws have specific procedures and authorized persons to file such petitions under Section 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018). Section 46, paragraph three, stipulates that the Constitutional Court must dismiss such petitions. Therefore, the petitioner could not file this petition under Section 213 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court unanimously resolved to dismiss the petition and not accept it for consideration.