The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition filed by Kongkiat, a member of the Kla Tham Party, concerning his removal from the candidate list for the Nakhon Si Thammarat MP election, ruling the case has been finally settled. The court also rejected the petition against the Election Commission for not including an option to amend the constitution article by article on the referendum ballot, considering it unconstitutional due to the lack of such a channel.
On 13 Aug 2026 GMT+7, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided not to accept the petition from Kongkiat Ketsombat, former candidate for MP District 7, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Kla Tham Party. He requested the court to rule under Constitution Section 213, claiming harm from actions by the Election Commission (EC), its chairman, the Nakhon Si Thammarat provincial EC, and the Supreme Court’s election division. They ordered his name removed from the official candidate list for District 7, citing disqualification under Section 42 (12) of the Organic Act on MP Elections B.E. 2561 (2018). Kongkiat claimed this violated his rights and Sections 3, 26, and 27 of the Constitution. The court found that the facts and evidence showed the matter had been definitively decided by another court, per Section 47 (4) of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561, and thus under Section 46 Paragraph 3, it must dismiss the petition. Therefore, Kongkiat cannot file this petition under Constitution Section 213.
Regarding the claim that Section 42 (12) of the Organic Act on MP Elections B.E. 2561 conflicts with Sections 3, 26, and 27 of the Constitution, the court noted this is a request to review the constitutionality of a law. The Constitution grants that right specifically under Sections 212 and 231 (1), and only if the procedures and conditions under the Constitutional Court Procedure Act Sections 47 (2) and 48 are met. Since these were not followed, the court must dismiss the petition under Section 46 Paragraph 3. Therefore, the petitioner cannot submit this claim under Constitution Section 213.
Additionally, the court unanimously rejected the petition by Wathana Chomchoei, who requested a ruling under Constitution Section 213. Wathana alleged that the EC chairman, secretary-general, EC office, and EC members (respondents 1-4) designed the referendum ballot without a separate option for amending the constitution article by article. He claimed this prevented voters from exercising their rights fully. Furthermore, the Nakhon Si Thammarat provincial EC (respondent 5) did not allow him to photograph the referendum ballot, hindering his ability to use it as evidence. He also accused the respondents of disseminating inaccurate referendum statistics, violating his rights under Sections 3, 4, 25, 41, 50 (2), and 59 of the Constitution.
The court found that, based on the facts and documents, if the petitioner believes his rights were violated, he may seek remedies through other courts according to Section 25 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The Constitution and related laws provide specific procedures and authorized persons to petition the court, as detailed in the Constitutional Court Procedure Act Section 47 (2). Therefore, under Section 46 Paragraph 3, the Constitutional Court must dismiss this petition. Consequently, the petitioner cannot file this claim under Constitution Section 213.