Revealed are the records of two minority Election Commissioners opposing the decision to send the Senate election case to the Constitutional Court. They argue that citing the order as final actually aims to strip the Supreme Court of its oversight power, criticize the corruption issue as merely a preliminary suspicion, and affirm there is no legal channel for the Supreme Court to delay the case awaiting the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
On 9 Nov 2026 GMT+7, reporters reported that during the 110/2569 meeting of the Election Commission (EC) on 2 Nov 2026 GMT+7, agenda item 8.2 concerned the consideration of a petition to the Constitutional Court to rule on a case under Article 210 (2) of the Constitution. It was revealed that Mr. Sitthichot Intarawiset and Mr. Chai Nakornchai, both EC members, jointly prepared a minority opinion record opposing the resolution.
Regarding issue 1, the EC requested the Constitutional Court to rule that when election directors at district, provincial, and national levels issue orders to accept candidacies and announce qualified candidates without disqualifications, such orders are final and cannot be further reviewed, except in cases under Section 63 of the Organic Act on the Election of Senators B.E. 2561, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
On this point, the minority members see that although the EC claims the orders accepting and announcing qualified candidates are final and unreviewable, the effect of this request would deprive the Supreme Court of its authority to examine or verify the correctness of these orders. Clearly, this request is effectively asking the Constitutional Court to rule on the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court, which is impermissible under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it conflicts with the constitutional intent and the principle of checks and balances designed to prevent any individual or organization from having absolute or improper power. Additionally, if jurisdictional conflicts arise between courts, Article 192 of the Constitution specifically assigns the matter to the Committee on Jurisdictional Disputes between Courts.
Furthermore, a key fact is that on 27 Oct 2026 GMT+7, the Election Commission, represented by its chairman as primary objector in cases L.T. S.W. 9/2569 and L.T. S.W. 10/2569, had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the legal issue that "the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over these election cases." The Supreme Court issued an order on the same day stating it would await judgment. Therefore, the EC's current petition to the Constitutional Court concerns the same matter already under Supreme Court consideration. This shows that when the EC disagreed with the Supreme Court's acceptance of the case, it sought the Constitutional Court’s ruling to declare the EC’s order as final and not reviewable by the Supreme Court, while actually aiming to have the Constitutional Court decide on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, even though this is not provided for under Article 210 (1) (2). Such action is considered an abuse of legal rights inconsistent with the Principle of Good Faith (Bona Fides) under international law, which requires petitioners seeking justice to act with integrity and fairness (Clean Hands Doctrine).
However, considering the constitutional intent, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court’s election division authority to review the Election Commission's discretionary decisions both before and after election results announcements, under Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution. It also establishes the general jurisdiction of the judiciary under Article 194, which states that the courts have authority over all cases unless constitutionally or legally assigned to other courts. Hence, it is clear that the Constitution and laws already empower the Supreme Court to adjudicate election cases directly, leaving no grounds to dispute the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
The minority commissioners also gave a comparative example: previously, the Election Commission did not announce candidate names for the Nakhon Sawan Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO) election under the Local Council and Local Executive Election Act B.E. 2562, Section 55. Although this provision did not specify appeals to the Court of Appeal or regional appellate courts, the Supreme Court interpreted the constitutional intent under Articles 224 (1), 226 paragraph six, and 194 to empower appellate courts to oversee the EC’s election-related powers. Even though Section 55 did not grant the right to appeal court decisions like Section 56’s latter paragraph, the Supreme Court ruled that the EC's decision not to announce candidates was not final and could be reviewed. This is comparable to Constitutional Court ruling 14/2566 and Supreme Court cases L.T. Tho. 1/2567 and L.T. Tho. 337/2567.
Regarding issue 2, the EC requested the Constitutional Court to rule that when the Election Commission issues decisions under Section 60 paragraph two and Section 62 of the Organic Act on the Election of Senators B.E. 2561, such decisions are final and cannot be submitted to the Supreme Court for review or reconsideration.
On this matter, the minority commissioners stated that it concerns determining whether a candidate or any person has committed election fraud or was complicit in such acts. The EC has a legal duty to file a petition to the Supreme Court to revoke the candidate’s or voter’s rights accordingly. The EC's request for the Constitutional Court’s ruling before any factual findings or actual disputes regarding its duties and powers have arisen is merely a "doubt, inquiry, or speculation" about potential future problems. Moreover, constitutional petitions must directly concern duties and powers defined in the Constitution. Thus, a petition under Sections 60 paragraph two and 62 of the Organic Act on the Election of Senators does not meet the criteria to be submitted to the Constitutional Court under Article 210 (1) (2), consistent with prior Constitutional Court rulings 6/2542, 7/2542, 5/2549, and orders 1/2561 and 16/2562.
Finally, the minority commissioners noted that the EC’s resolution to submit this petition to the Supreme Court, requesting it to await the Constitutional Court’s decision before proceeding, is impermissible. The EC’s petition under Article 210 (1) (2) is not a case involving a legal provision conflicting with the Constitution that would require the Supreme Court to temporarily suspend proceedings under Article 212 (1) of the Constitution.
