Constitutional Court of Thailand

Kanin Boonsuwan (2005). Is Our Constitution Dead? (PDF) (in Thai). Manit Jumpa (2002). A Study on Constitutional Lawsuits (PDF) (in Thai). Kanit Na Nakhon (2006). Constitution and Justice (PDF) (in Thai). Kanin Boonsuwan (2007). What the Country Gets from Ripping the Charter? (PDF) (in Thai). Kanit Na Nakhon (2007). Ripping the Law: Retroactive Application of Law in Party Dissolution Case (PDF) (in Thai). Noranit Setabutr (2007). Constitutions and Thai Politics (PDF) (in Thai). Manit Jumpa (2007). A Comment on Reform of Thai Constitution in 2007 (PDF) (in Thai). Senate Secretariat General (2008). Recruitment and Selection of Constitutional Court Judges under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Buddhist Era 2540 (1997) (PDF) (in Thai). Kanit Na Nakhon (2005). Fraudulent Rule of Law in Thai Law (PDF) (in Thai). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.

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 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. After the Tribunal’s ruling, the Supreme Court elected justice Jumpol na Songkhla on 9 January 1998 to replace Amphorn. Immediately after the Supreme Court filed its request to the Tribunal, Justice Amphorn withdrew his name. 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.

The text were deemed by some as sexist and politically incorrect. ข้อกำหนดศาลรัฐธรรมนูญว่าด้วยวิธีพิจารณาและการทำคำวินิจฉัย พ.ศ.

The appointment of former Senate and Parliament president Ukrit Mongkolnavin was especially problematic. 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. 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.