The Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the petition from a former Senate candidate who sued the Election Commission, the Ombudsman, and the Constitutional Court regarding the Senate election, ruling it was a previously addressed matter and a challenge to judicial discretion.
On 3 Nov 2026 GMT+7, the Constitutional Court reviewed a petition by Mr. Somphol Harikul, a former Senate candidate, requesting the court to rule under Section 213 of the constitution. The petitioner claimed that the Election Commission's conduct in managing the 2024 Senate election was neither honest nor fair, violating the rights and freedoms of himself and other candidates, and conflicting with constitutional Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 107, 108, and 224(2). He also accused the Ombudsman of failing to submit his petition and opinion to the Constitutional Court regarding the Election Commission's allegedly unlawful and unfair election management, citing violations of constitutional Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Additionally, the petitioner accused the Constitutional Court of neglecting its duties by not investigating facts and issuing orders rejecting his petition on the Senate election management, as reflected in Constitutional Court Orders 18/2569, 19/2569, and 33/2569, which he claimed violated his rights and freedoms and conflicted with constitutional Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Before considering this case, the Constitutional Court reviewed Mr. Somphol’s petition dated 13 Oct 2026 GMT+7, which requested the disqualification of nine Constitutional Court judges—Mr. Udom Sitthiviratchatham, Mr. Virul Sangthian, Mr. Jiraniti Hawanont, Mr. Naphadon Thepphitak, Mr. Banjongsak Wongprach, Mr. Udom Ratamrit, Mr. Sumeth Roykulcharoen, Mr. Sarawut Songsivilai, and Lt. Gen. Chakrapong Wiwatwanich—from the case.
The Constitutional Court convened and concluded that the petition to disqualify the judges did not meet legal grounds under the Constitutional Court Procedure Act 2018 Sections 32, 33, and 35, and therefore dismissed the disqualification request.
The Constitutional Court found from the petition and supporting documents that the Election Commission’s actions involved the same matter previously petitioned by Mr. Somphol. The court’s Order 33/2569 dated 11 Mar 2026 GMT+7 had already dismissed that petition under Section 213 of the constitution. Since this petition did not present new substantive issues, it was not eligible for consideration under Section 46, paragraph three of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act 2018. Therefore, the petitioner could not file under Section 213.
Regarding the petitioner’s claim that the Ombudsman’s failure to submit his petition to the Constitutional Court infringed his rights and freedoms, the court noted that the constitution and its laws prescribe a specific complaint process under Section 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act 2018, which requires the court to reject petitions under Section 46, paragraph three. Thus, the petitioner could not proceed under Section 213.
The court explained that its rejection of the petition reflects a challenge to its judicial discretion in handling the case, an authority granted to the judges under constitutional Sections 188, paragraph two, and 210, paragraph three. Therefore, the petitioner could not file under Section 213. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition.