BANGKOK: Pheu Thai’s effort to retaliate against the Bhumjaithai Party through the Constitutional Court by seeking an ethics probe into Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pic) has not disappeared, but remains stalled.
The party had earlier prepared to file a petition against Anutin and Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, leader of the People’s Party, over their political memorandum of agreement (MOA). The pact between the People’s Party and Bhumjaithai was viewed by critics as potentially undermining the constitutional monarchy by allowing external interference in exchange for political benefits.
Although Pheu Thai MPs filed a petition with House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha on Sept 5, they quickly withdrew it within days. Wisut Chainaroon, chief government whip from Pheu Thai, later explained that the petition was withdrawn for the party’s legal team to review the matter thoroughly and for the issue to be debated and endorsed by a party MPs’ meeting.
Nearly a month later, however, the legal team has yet to return the case for consideration by the party assembly.
Wisut said the case is still with the party’s legal team, headed by Chusak Sirinil. Once the team concludes, it must be presented to a party MPs’ meeting for endorsement. If the meeting approves, MPs will sign the petition for submission to the House Speaker, who would then forward it to the Constitutional Court.
The nearly month-long delay, he explained, was partly due to political timing. Pheu Thai has been waiting to see the final line-up of the new Cabinet, preparing for the government’s policy statement debate in Parliament, and monitoring the upcoming constitutional amendment motions.
Insiders said the petition was withdrawn earlier because of legal weaknesses. The party may need to refine its case against Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul by framing it more clearly as an “ethical violation” involving conflicts of interest in governance.
As for Natthaphong, opinion within Pheu Thai remains divided. Some argue he should be excluded from the case, citing long-standing good relations and the constitutional principle that MPs’ votes in choosing a prime minister are an individual right.
They also noted that the political memorandum between his party and Bhumjaithai does not clearly constitute interference in state administration.
Others, however, believe his inclusion should remain, so the Constitutional Court can rule on the matter and establish a precedent in political ethics.
While Pheu Thai’s petition on the MOA remains unresolved, fresh pressure has emerged to pursue Prime Minister Anutin on grounds of lacking “integrity.”
Phattarapong Supakson, a lawyer, submitted a request to Pheu Thai through MP Cherdchai Tantisirin to accelerate the process of collecting MPs’ signatures and forwarding the petition to the House Speaker for referral to the Constitutional Court.
In his letter, Phattarapong outlined allegations that Anutin’s conduct both before and after taking office may contravene constitutional requirements, breach serious ethical standards, and show a lack of evident honesty.
The cited issues include:
>Anutin’s name appears on a household registration tied to the disputed Khao Kradong land
>Allegations of collusion in the Senate selection process
>Use of a public road in Pak Chong district, Nakhon Ratchasima, as a private airstrip
The appointment of Capt Thammanat Prompao as agriculture minister, despite widespread concerns that his background made him ineligible under ethical standards.
He stressed that the latter case was particularly troubling, noting that even the previous administration of former prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra had refrained from appointing Thammanat due to ethical concerns.
Cherdchai confirmed that the party will table the latest petition against Prime Minister Anutin at its meeting on Oct 7 to decide whether the case has merit and should proceed. The issue may also be combined with the pending legal review of the earlier MOA petition already in the party’s hands.
However, the stakes extend beyond constitutional technicalities. Pheu Thai must weigh the broader political trajectory after the next election. Anutin has publicly pledged, most recently in Parliament on Sept 30, to dissolve the House within four months—by Jan 31, 2026 at the latest. That leaves Pheu Thai with just 123 days to pursue his removal from office.
Comparisons have already been drawn with the Constitutional Court’s recent ruling on former premier Srettha Thavisin, who was ousted after appointing Pichit Chuenban, a minister tainted by scandal. In that case, the Court took just 84 days, from accepting the case on May 23, 2024, to delivering its verdict on Aug 14.
The tight timeline raises doubts over whether the Court could deliver a ruling before Parliament is dissolved. Should the dissolution occur first, the Court could choose to dismiss the case at its discretion, as the respondent would already be out of office.
Even before that, the Court must decide whether to accept the petition. The burden remains on Pheu Thai to prove that Anutin either lacks manifest integrity or committed serious ethical breaches.
Allegations tied to the MOA, as well as the four issues raised by lawyer Phattarapong, would need strong evidence to meet that threshold.
In the current political climate, which has tilted in favour of Anutin and his “blue camp” allies, now seen as the standard-bearers of the conservative establishment, Pheu Thai faces a dilemma. A move driven purely by political revenge could backfire, weakening its standing ahead of the next election. As insiders warn, while Anutin himself might be willing to forgive, “those around him” are unlikely to do the same. - The Nation/ANN
