Court throws out two petitions against PM Anutin on technical grounds, leaving allegations untouched, as he presses on with a hard-line northeast campaign, backs the military, vows to scrap Cambodia’s MOU 44 and rallies votes ahead of the Feb 8 election.
Campaigning in Sisaket on Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul doubled down on his party’s nationalist stance, declaring firm backing for Thailand’s military and pledging that, if re-elected, he would scrap the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding with Cambodia, known as MOU 44, which governs a joint maritime approach in the Gulf of Thailand, on the same day that two Constitutional Court cases against him and his party were dismissed for lack of standing, one over allegations he used a public road as an aircraft landing strip and the other over the agreement with the People’s Party that secured his election as PM in September 2025.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul recorded a decisive day on Wednesday as the Constitutional Court dismissed two separate petitions against him, clearing immediate legal challenges while he continued an aggressive election campaign in the northeast.
Both rulings were delivered on the morning of 4 February 2026, and in both cases the court rejected the petitions at the admissibility stage. As a result, neither case proceeded to a ruling on the substance, leaving the underlying allegations unexamined.
First, the Constitutional Court considered a petition challenging a political agreement central to the formation of the current government. Specifically, the case concerned a Memorandum of Understanding between the Bhumjaithai Party and the People’s Party.
Court examines Bhumjaithai and People’s Party pact that enabled Anutin’s September rise to power
The agreement was concluded in early September 2025 and directly enabled Mr Anutin’s election as prime minister. Notably, the arrangement relied on parliamentary support from People’s Party members, making it politically significant from the outset.
The petition was filed by Colonel Ratkhet Chaengchamrat under Article 213 of the Constitution. He named Mr Anutin and Mr Natthapong Ruangpanyawut as respondents. According to the filing, the memorandum violated several constitutional provisions, including Articles 114, 144, 164, and 185.
In addition, the petitioner alleged that the agreement constituted serious ethical misconduct. Consequently, he argued that it should result in the termination of parliamentary membership under Article 101. He further claimed that the conduct amounted to a criminal offence under Article 157 of the Criminal Code.
However, after deliberation, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition. Crucially, the court ruled that the petitioner lacked standing. As a result, it found no evidence that the petitioner’s constitutional rights or freedoms had been violated. Moreover, the court held that the petition amounted to an expression of opinion as a citizen rather than a legally actionable claim.
Court throws out petition citing lack of standing and procedural failures without ruling on substance
Furthermore, the court found that the petition failed to meet procedural requirements set out in the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561. Specifically, it ruled that the filing did not satisfy Section 46, paragraph one, which governs eligibility and admissibility. Accordingly, the court declined to accept the petition for consideration. Importantly, it made no findings on the legality or constitutionality of the memorandum itself.
In addition, the court addressed the petitioner’s request for a ruling on ethical violations. It noted that cases alleging serious ethical breaches are governed by specific constitutional and statutory procedures. Only designated authorities may submit such cases to the court. Therefore, the petition could not proceed under Article 213.
Citing Section 47(2) and Section 46, paragraph three, the court ordered the petition rejected in full. Once again, the ruling was strictly procedural.
Shortly afterwards, the Constitutional Court delivered its second decision of the morning. This case involved allegations that Mr Anutin abused his authority while serving as Minister of the Interior. The petition was filed by Mr Niyom Nopparat, again under Article 213 of the Constitution. He accused Mr Anutin of using official power to permit a public road to serve as an aircraft landing strip.
Second petition targets alleged road runway use by Interior Minister linked to family resort ownership
According to the petition, the road was used for aircraft associated with private business activities. The location was near Rancho Charnvee Resort & Country Club in Nakhon Ratchasima province. The resort is owned by the prime minister’s family, a fact emphasised repeatedly in the filing. As a result, the petitioner alleged a serious conflict of interest and ethical misconduct.
Moreover, the petition claimed that the conduct violated ministerial ethical standards. It cited Sections 160(4) and (5), 219, and 235 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the alleged misuse of authority warranted constitutional intervention. He requested the court to rule on whether the actions constituted a serious ethical breach.
However, the Constitutional Court unanimously resolved not to accept the petition for consideration. The decision was issued at 11:40 am. The court ruled that the petition lacked substance under applicable procedural law. Crucially, it found that the case was not new.
The court noted that Mr Niyom had filed the same complaint previously. Similar petitions were submitted in August and September 2025. On those occasions, the court issued Order 90/2568 on 27 August and Order 98/2568 on 17 September, rejecting the filings. In both earlier rulings, the court cited non-compliance with Sections 46 and 47(2) of the Procedure Act.
Judges reject repeat filing noting no new facts and earlier dismissals under court procedure law rules
Accordingly, the court found that the new petition introduced no additional substance. It contained no new facts, evidence, or legal arguments. Therefore, it failed to meet the threshold required under Section 46, paragraph three. As a result, the petitioner was not entitled to submit the case under Article 213.
Once again, the court declined jurisdiction. Once again, it did not examine the merits of the allegations. No findings were made regarding the alleged use of the road or the ethical implications. The ruling remained entirely procedural.
Both decisions were unanimous. They were delivered on the same morning. Both removed pending constitutional challenges against the prime minister without addressing the substance of the petitions. By midday, Mr Anutin faced no active cases before the Constitutional Court.
Following the rulings, Mr Anutin continued his campaign schedule without interruption. Later that afternoon, he travelled to Sisaket province as part of the final week of election campaigning. He appeared in Kantharalak district, a border area that has experienced past security incidents.
With court cases cleared Anutin resumes final week campaigning in border province of Sisaket
At 5:00 pm, Mr Anutin arrived at the Kantharalak District Government Centre. He campaigned for Mr Chitpol Traisaranakul, the Bhumjaithai Party candidate for Constituency 4. Mr Anutin appeared in multiple roles, including prime minister, interior minister, party leader, and prime ministerial candidate.
Also present was Mr Chaiyanok Chidchob, the secretary-general of the Bhumjaithai Party. Party supporters gathered at the venue. As Mr Anutin walked toward the stage, members of the public approached him. Schoolchildren requested photographs and selfies. Several supporters presented him with garlands made of rice grains and yams.
Mr Anutin then delivered a speech addressing local residents. He referred to past violence and shooting incidents in the area. He said he had been present with residents during those events. However, he stated that those incidents were now in the past.
Accordingly, he told the crowd that such violence would not recur. He declared there would be no third outbreak of hostilities. He linked this assurance to national unity and public resolve. Moreover, he said collective strength would deter external enemies from acting.
Anutin recalls past violence promises no third hostilities and credits unity for the present calm situation
Mr Anutin stated that conditions had returned to normal. He apologised for evacuation orders issued during earlier security operations. However, he emphasised that public safety had been the priority. He thanked residents for cooperating with evacuation measures. He credited that cooperation with the rapid resolution of the situation.
Turning to the election, Mr Anutin noted that voting would take place on 8 February. He urged residents to exercise their voting rights. Specifically, he asked Kantharalak voters to support the Bhumjaithai Party candidate. He endorsed Mr Chitpol as the party’s chosen representative for the district.
Anutin then raised border policy and security issues. He asked the crowd whether they wanted the cancellation of MOU 44. The PM stated that he would arrange its cancellation if returned to office. In addition, he addressed the role of the military.
Mr Anutin said the Bhumjaithai Party understood why Thailand needed armed forces. He said the military existed to protect the country in times of distress. Furthermore, he stated that the party believed the Thai military could win any battle.
Election pitch sharpens as Anutin backs military strength and attacks rivals’ defence positions now
He contrasted this stance with those of rival parties. According to Mr Anutin, some parties questioned the need for soldiers. Others claimed that soldiers would lose wars. He rejected those views directly. Instead, he said the Bhumjaithai Party stood firmly behind the military.
Prime Minister Anutin insisted Thai soldiers were on the side of the people. Furthermore, they would never lose. He then addressed fears of renewed conflict. He asked whether residents feared a third round of fighting. In reply, he told his audience such fears were unfounded.
Mr Anutin stated that under his leadership, Thailand would prevail. There would be no third conflict. He attributed this confidence to public support. The PM said no one would dare to fight against Thailand again.
He declared that the land belonged to the Thai people. It would never be taken back. He warned against future interference. He said public trust empowered the government to act decisively.
Final appeal urges province-wide sweep for Bhumjaithai as Anutin presses voters to unite behind him
Finally, Mr Anutin appealed for unified voting across Sisaket province. In particular, he urged voters not to vote haphazardly. The country had no time left for experimentation. He called for support for Bhumjaithai candidates in all nine districts.
The PM promised full commitment if the party secured province-wide representation. He urged voters to support candidate number four in Kantharalak. He concluded by saying he came personally to ask for votes.
Bombshell audio clip suggesting a conservative plot is genuine says Lawyer Aun, says he has the numbers
People’s Party leader and former MPs in court on Monday seeking bail in Gulf Criminal defamation case
Minister files police report over audio clip claiming a People’s Party government will spark a coup d’état
The campaign rally followed a day marked by favourable court decisions. Both legal challenges were dismissed. Neither was resolved on substance. Together, the rulings and the campaign event marked a positive day for Mr. Anutin in the run-up to the General Election scheduled for Sunday, 8 February.
Join the Thai News forum, follow Thai Examiner on Facebook here
Receive all our stories as they come out on Telegram here
Follow Thai Examiner here
Further reading:
Bank of Thailand Governor orders monitoring of cash withdrawals amid widespread vote buying fears
