The Supreme Court ruled that "Cho Pannika" violated serious ethics. Post insulting the institution The right to apply for election is forever revoked. Have no right to hold political office But not revoking the right to vote.
A panel of judges of the Supreme Court read the judgment in the case of black number Khom Jor. 1/2021 and red number Khom Jor. 5/2023 between the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the petitioner Ms. Pannika Wanich, the objector, and the petitioner. File a complaint saying The objector posted photos and messages according to the complaint number 4.1 (1) to (6) in the manner of an inappropriate action against the monarchy on the Facebook website under the account name of the objector “Pannika Chor Wanich”. Later, the dissenters were elected to the position of members of the House of Representatives. The photos and messages still appear on the protestors' public Facebook accounts. The general public can view them continuously.
The objector did not do anything. or delete such images and messages from the protestor's Facebook account. It is an expression of disrespect and respect for the monarchy. which is not adhering to and maintaining the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State and it is not protecting and maintaining the monarchy. Please judge that The objector has seriously violated or failed to comply with ethical standards. with the revocation of the right to apply for election and revoke the voting rights of the objectors for a period not exceeding ten years. According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 235, the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption B.E. 2018, Section 87, and the ethical standards of Constitutional Court judges. and persons holding positions in independent organizations Including the Auditor-General and the heads of administrative agencies of the Constitutional Court and Independent Organizations, 2018, Article 5, Article 6, and Article 27.
The objector submitted an objection that The dissenter's actions occurred before laws and ethical standards existed. Therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively against the objector. And the said law is intended to apply to persons who are still in office while being sued and prosecuted. But the objector has resigned from his position as a member of the House of Representatives. The petitioner therefore has no authority to investigate and file a petition with the court. While the objector was a member of the House of Representatives Did not do anything that violated or failed to comply with ethical standards. The fact that the photos and messages in the request are still available does not constitute an act of violation or non-compliance with ethical standards. Please dismiss the request.
The Supreme Court ruled that The petitioner received a complaint from the Association of Thai Constitutional Defenders, dated June 11, 2019, alleging that the objector, while serving as a member of the House of Representatives, had seriously violated or failed to comply with ethical standards. which at that time was already in effect for consideration At that time the objector was still a member of the House of Representatives. Even later, the dissenters had resigned from their positions. The petitioner still has the power to investigate and file a complaint in this case. According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 234 (1), Section 235, paragraph one (1) and the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption B.E. 2018, Section 87 together with Section 55 (3), which the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 2 stipulates that “Thailand has a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” Section 6 stipulates that “The King holds a position that is revered and worshipped and cannot be violated by anyone.”
Section 4 Duties of the Thai People Section 50 states that “a person has the following duties: (1) protect and preserve the nation, religion, and monarchy; and democratic governance with the King as Head of State…” The objectors are of Thai race and nationality. In addition to having duties under Section 50 (1), which is the duty of all Thai people, Objectors as members of the House of Representatives must also adhere to ethical standards in order to preserve the honor of holding office and the trust and faith of the people. One must be careful when using social media so that there are no photos or messages that refer to or express feelings against the monarchy in an inappropriate or inappropriate way. Because the King is the head of the country. It is a mascot and a center of unity for the Thai people. Referring to the King as "King", "Father of the Land" or "Father of the Land", he is revered by all Thai people. All Thai people have love and pride in the King and have always respected the monarchy. When considering the actions of the objectors according to the request, which have been done continuously, the actions of the objectors in all six cases must be considered together in order to understand the intent of the objectors.
The action of the objector according to the request number 4.1 (1) to 4.1 (4) and 4.1 (6) can be understood that the objector intends to refer to King Rama IX. The action according to the request number 4.1 (5) is a statement. The message refers to Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. (name at that time) which was an expression of the monarchy in a way that was extremely inappropriate or inappropriate It is disrespectful of the duty of the Thai people to protect and preserve the nation, religion, and monarchy. It shows the attitude of those who object to the monarchy throughout the past. Since before serving as a member of the House of Representatives and when the objector holds the position of member of the House of Representatives which is subject to ethical standards, Section 1, Ethical Standards as Ideology, Article 6, which requires protestors to protect and maintain which the monarchy which surgery violates or fails to comply with ethical standards in a serious manner
In addition to direct action It also means bringing about a certain result by refraining from doing anything that must be done to prevent that result. When the objector continues to allow such photos and messages to appear in the computer system, the objector's Facebook account is public and accessible to the general public. The behavior of the objectors was an expression of disrespect. and honor the monarchy that must be protected according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 6, Section 50 (1) and Ethical Standards, Section 6. The protestors did not delete or remove all such photographs and messages from the computer system. Both can be done In order not to appear and so that no one can access the photos and messages in these six cases. This is considered a refraining from what must be done to prevent that result through the actions of the objector. It is considered a serious violation or non-compliance with ethical standards. According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 235 In conjunction with the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, B.E. 2018, Section 87 and Ethical Standards, Article 6, together with Article 27, paragraph one, the right to run for election of the objector is revoked forever. Including not having the right to hold any political position. According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 235, paragraph three and paragraph four But it still cannot be heard that it is not a commitment and maintenance. The democratic regime with the King as Head of State complies with ethical standards, Article 5, and therefore still does not see fit to revoke the voting rights of those who oppose it. 2018, Section 87 and Ethical Standards, Section 6, together with Section 27, paragraph one, revoke the right to run for election of the objector forever. Including not having the right to hold any political position. According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 235, paragraph three and paragraph four But it still cannot be heard that it is not a commitment and maintenance. The democratic regime with the King as Head of State complies with ethical standards, Article 5, and therefore still does not see fit to revoke the voting rights of those who oppose it. 2018, Section 87 and Ethical Standards, Section 6, together with Section 27, paragraph one, revoke the right to run for election of the objector forever. Including not having the right to hold any political position. According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 235, paragraph three and paragraph four But it still cannot be heard that it is not a commitment and maintenance. The democratic regime with the King as Head of State complies with ethical standards, Article 5, and therefore still does not see fit to revoke the voting rights of those who oppose it.
Source: Thai News Agency