Speaker of the House Speaker Chuan Leekpai confirmed on Thursday (12 September) that the general debate over the incomplete oath of office of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan o-cha will take place as planned and is part of the usual "check-and-balance" process.
He said that the dismissal of a constitutional court's motion in the context of the oath controversy has nothing to do with the house, which is required to question the government's performance independently.
"In the general debate, MEPs can discuss, ask questions, and make proposals to the government that are part of the constitutional check-and-balance process," he said.
In rejecting the petition, the court stated that the swearing-in was a political matter in relation to the Cabinet and the Monarchy.
It was beyond the jurisdiction of the court to examine issues between the administrative branch and the monarchy.
General Prayuth took his oath on July 16 before His Majesty the King. The Prime Minister could not complete the oath, since he omitted the last sentence during the swearing-in and more than disturbed his critics in parliament.
The petition was tabled through the Ombudsman's Office on 20 August by Panupong Churak, a student from Ramkhamhaeng University. He cited Section 213 of the Charter on the Right of Citizens to complain if they believe that their constitutional rights are being violated.
However, the Court's rejection of the petition has led to speculation not only in the social networks that the debate could be broken off.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said on Thursday that he considered the oath controversy over, although he doubted that the court had deliberately opted in favor of the government.
In the opinion of Mr Wissanu, it is unlikely that the oath controversy resulting from the court ruling will be submitted to other independent bodies for consideration.
However, the opposition said on Thursday that the court's ruling gave the house a more solid reason to curse the government over the oath controversy and keep its performance in check.
Secretary-General of the Future Forward Party, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, said the court's explanation clearly points out that the oath injury is a political matter that gives the house the justification it needs to continue the debate.
He said that the opposition has not yet allocated time windows for the debate and has not selected speakers for the debate, which is expected to take 10 hours.
It is also not yet known which topics the critics want to address in the debate.
The head of the opposition, Suthin Khlangsaeng, agreed with Mr Piyabutr and said on Thursday that Parliament has every reason to continue the examination after the court's decision.
Meanwhile, Pheu Thai MP for Nan, Cholnan Srikaew, also said that the general debate could be continued simultaneously with the reading of the court verdict on the qualification of General Prayuth as Prime Minister candidate.
The court is expected to make its decision on September 18 at 2:00 pm.
The ruling is a response to Mr. Chuan's petition of opposition to the qualifications of General Prayuth as prime minister of the country.
The petition alleges that General Prayuth, in his former capacity as National Councilor or Chief of the Ministry of Peace and Order (NCPO), was considered a civil servant and therefore could not be admitted as Prime Minister after the elections.
Dr. Cholnan said the verdict on the status of General Prayuth's candidacy had nothing to do with the oath debate, even if the court were to judge him.
"If the court decides that he is indeed eligible for office, we will blame him because he has always said he is a ratthathipat [supreme authority]," he said.
"The remark shows that he does not respect the Charter and we want to show that clearly," he said.
In the past, the Ombudsman's office found that General Prayuth, as head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), was not a civil servant.
Sources: die Welt, Bangkok Post, thailand tip