The Constitutional Court, June 7 – Constitutional Court Resolution 2 Sections of the Administrative Measures Act on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption are not contrary to the Constitution.
Today (June 7), the Constitutional Court, by a 8-to-1 vote, ruled that Section 40 and Section 41 of the Administrative Measures to Prevent and Suppress Corruption Act 2008 are not contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution. Section 26 In such a case, the Songkhla Administrative Court sent Ms. Charat Thepsingh's argument in Black Case No. Bor. Anti-Corruption Act 2018, Section 40, paragraph one, which stipulates that When the PACC passes a resolution that any government official commits corruption in the public sector and it is a case of disciplinary offence, the President shall submit the report and existing documents. together with opinions to the superior or the person having the power to appoint and remove the accused person to consider disciplinary action based on offenses committed by the PACC. resolved without having to appoint another disciplinary inquiry committee In determining the disciplinary action against the accused, the reports, documents and opinions of the PACC shall be regarded as disciplinary investigation files of the Disciplinary Investigation Committee in accordance with the laws, rules or regulations. on personnel management of such accused, as the case may be
The second paragraph states that for the accused There is no law, rule or regulation on disciplinary action when the PACC passes a resolution that the accused has committed an offense in the matter as alleged. The Chairman shall submit the report and existing documents together with the opinion of the PACC to the superior or the person having the power to appoint and remove. In order to proceed according to their authority and section 41, which states that when receiving a report under section 40, the supervisor or the person with the power to appoint and remove the penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the matter and the supervisor or person with power Appointing, removing and submitting a copy of the punishment order to the PACC within 15 days from the date of issuance of the order contrary to or inconsistent with Section 26 of the Constitution.
In addition, the Constitutional Court held a debate leading up to its ruling on the case submitted by the Criminal Court against Mr. Pakin Tipphachaowakhun and Ms. Priyaporn Sangta, defendants in the Black Case No. 1194. /2564 asked the Constitutional Court to decide according to Section 212 of the Constitution that the Revenue Code, Section 90/5, which states that In the case where the offender under this chapter is a juristic person If the offense of such juristic person is caused by an order or action of a director or manager or any person which is responsible for the operation of that juristic person, or in the event that such person has the duty to order or act and omit to order or act that causes that juristic person If the offender commits an offense, that person must also be punished according to the provisions for that offence. Is it contrary to or inconsistent with section 26 and section 29 of the Constitution? and there was sufficient evidence to make a decision, so the investigation was not conducted according to the Royal Decree.
Source: Thai News Agency