1 July 2026

The "Constitutional Court" unanimously! does not accept the petition, "Antoine" appoints "Pip" to oversee energy management, benefit the business itself-kinship, point out, the petitioner is not a direct victim.

On July 1, 2026, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition in which Mr. Whitney Wong Thipp asked the Constitutional Court to consider the decision, with the petitioner claiming that the actions of Mr. Nintin Chan Virgul, the Prime Minister and the Interior Department (respondent I) had ordered the appointment of Mr. Pitun, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Rev. Transportation (respondent 2) to hold positions of supervisory and command authority regarding energy policy, situation management, fuel oil of the country, with respondent 2 having an interest in the energy business, possibly resulting in benefits to the business involving themselves and kinship.

Coupled with the second respondent's press release about the shortage of gas stations to affect the public, the respondent was directly damaged by the rapid increase in fuel prices.

Both respondent actions are actions that lack manifest integrity, are behaviors that violate or fail to comply with serious ethical standards, and are direct or indirect uses of status or position of conduct with a conflict of interest. The Constitutional Court asks the Constitutional Court to consider ruling on both respondent's prohibited qualifications or characteristics in accordance with the Constitution, causing the termination of both respondent's ministerial status.

The Constitutional Court considered, by discussion, that the facts of the petition, the additional petition, and the documentation do not appear to indicate that the petitioner has been directly violated his rights or freedoms and has suffered or been damaged by the violation of the rights or freedoms of the appointment of the two petitioners. The petitioner is not a person whose rights or freedoms have been violated by the Constitutional Court's 2018 Procedure Act, article 46, paragraph one.

As well as asking the Constitutional Court to rule on the end of the Constitution, Article 170, the Constitution, Article 170, third paragraph, makes Article 82, which provides that a number of MPs or senators of not less than 1 in 10 of the total number of members of each house shall have the right to petition the President of the Council of which he is a member, so that the President of the Council who receives the petition submits the petition to the Constitutional Court for a decision, or that the Election Commission shall have the power to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a decision. It is the case that the Constitution or Organic Law has specifically determined the petition process or the right to ask the Court to make a decision. With the Constitutional Court Procedure 2018, Article 47 (2), of which Article 46, third paragraph, provides that the Constitutional Court shall order that no petition shall be considered. Therefore, the petitioner may not make such an application in accordance with Constitution Article 213.

The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled against a petition to consider a ruling.