Constitutional Court Rejects Ex-Senate Candidate's Challenge to Nine Justices
Thailand's Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed former Senate candidate Sompol Harikul's challenge against nine just
The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed a petition by a former Senate candidate seeking to challenge nine justices presiding over the Election Commission's organization of the Senate election, ruling the petitioner lacked standing to file the case.
On November 3, 2026, the Constitutional Court considered the case filed by Mr. Sompol Harikul (the petitioner) requesting a ruling under Article 213 of the Constitution. The petitioner alleged that the Election Commission's (EC) organization of the Senate election lacked integrity and fairness, violating his rights and those of other Senate candidates, contravening Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 107, 108, and 224(2) of the Constitution. He also claimed the Ombudsman (Respondent 2) failed to forward his complaint with an opinion to the Constitutional Court (Respondent 3) regarding the EC's allegedly unfair and unlawful organization of the 2024 Senate election, citing incorrect legal grounds, which violated his rights under Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5. Furthermore, he alleged Respondent 3 neglected its duty by not investigating and issuing orders refusing to accept his petitions for review under Constitutional Court Orders 18/2026, 19/2026, and 33/2026, violating his rights under Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Prior to this case, the Constitutional Court had considered Mr. Sompol Harikul's petition dated October 13, 2026, which sought to challenge nine Constitutional Court justices — Mr. Udom Sittiwirattham, Mr. Wirul Saengthian, Mr. Jiranit Hawanon, Mr. Naphon Thepphitak, Mr. Bunjongsak Wongprachan, Mr. Udom Rattanamut, Mr. Sumeth Roikulcharoen, Mr. Sarawut Songsiwilai, and Pol. Lt. Gen. Jakkapong Wiwatwanich — to recuse themselves. After deliberation, the Court ruled the grounds did not constitute valid reasons for recusal under Articles 32, 33, and 35 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561, and dismissed the challenge.
The Constitutional Court, after deliberation, found that the facts in the petition and supporting documents showed Respondent 1's actions were identical to those in a previous petition the petitioner had filed with the Constitutional Court, which the Court had already rejected in Order No. 33/2026 dated March 11, 2026, declining to accept it for review under Article 213 of the Constitution. The current petition contained no new substantial material from the original, and thus was not a matter warranting review under Section 46(3) of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561. Therefore, the petitioner could not file such a petition under Article 213 of the Constitution.
Regarding the petitioner's claim that Respondent 2's failure to forward his petition to Respondent 3 violated his rights, this is a case where the Constitution or organic laws have specified a particular complaint process or standing to request court review under Section 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561, and Section 46(3) empowers the Constitutional Court to order non-acceptance of the petition. Therefore, the petitioner could not file such a petition under Article 213 of the Constitution.
As for Respondent 3's order refusing to accept the petitioner's petition for review, the text ends mid-sentence.
