The caretaker government insisted the Constitution Court ruling yesterday to veto the 2-trillion-baht borrowing bill will not affect its administrative status but that it could be shaken by the National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) decision on the rice-pledging scheme.
Speaking after the court's ruling, caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said that it was a great pity that the borrowing bill was rejected by the court.
"It's a pity to miss an opportunity to progress and connect with the Asean region and to become a regional investment hub," Ms Yingluck said.
She hopes the next government will recognise the significance of infrastructure development, take over and continue with the development projects.
Wirat Kalayasiri, a legal adviser to the Democrat Party, said after the court ruling against the bill that he plans to seek the impeachment of Ms Yingluck.
The prime minister responded that the government's opponents have a habit of being litigious against the government while refusing to take into account its true intentions.
"Please look at the intentions. Don't use legal means to limit other people's rights, which will make if difficult for the country to progress," Ms Yingluck said.
"I am now facing all kinds of lawsuits. At least we should ensure justice remains in society."
Meanwhile, caretaker Labour Minister Chalerm Yubamrung said the charter court's ruling was nothing to get excited about.
What is of greater concern is that the NACC is expected to decide whether to indict Ms Yingluck over the government's rice-pledging scheme in mid-April, Mr Chalerm said.
If the NACC decides to indict Ms Yingluck over the rice scheme, which would require her to stop working as prime minister, other cabinet ministers could still continue to work on her behalf. That will mean the government could stay in office.
The Constitution Court on Wednesday ruled the government-proposed bill to authorise the Finance Ministry to seek 2 trillion baht in loans for infrastructure development projects was unconstitutional.
The ruling was made following a request for the court to decide if the bill violated sections 169 and 170 of the constitution.
The request was filed by Democrat Party MPs through the House Speaker immediately after the Senate passed the bill in its final reading.
The court unanimously agreed with a vote of 9-0 that the content of the bill violated provisions stated in Chapter 8 of the charter which covers fiscal and budget affairs. It also voted 6-2 that the bill's legislative procedures went against sections 122 and 126 of the constitution. There was evidence that a Pheu Thai MP voted on behalf of other MPs by inserting other MPs' electronic cards to vote on the 2-trillion-baht borrowing bill.
The court also ruled that loans to be sought under the bill comprise state money and the spending and disbursement procedures must comply with the budget laws, except in cases of emergency.
However, the court said the infrastructure development projects are not an emergency case, as claimed by the government.
Constitution Court secretary Chaovana Traimat said the bill has been voided as a result of the ruling.
Meanwhile, the Constitution Court yesterday dismissed a petition by People's Democratic Reform Committee co-leader Thaworn Senneam for it to rule on the government's caretaker status now more than 30 days have passed since the Feb 2 poll.
The court said there was no evidence to prove the government had breached the charter as alleged by the petitioner.
Caretaker Transport Minister Chadchart Sittipunt said yesterday he respected the court's ruling on the loan bill, though he insisted the infrastructure projects will still have to go ahead.
The court's ruling concerns technicalities and the bill's constitutionality and it has nothing to do with the projects, he said.
He said the projects had not been rejected by the court and the next government would decide on them and find other sources of funding.
Caretaker PM's Office Minister Varathep Rattanakorn yesterday said the caretaker government is not obliged to take any political responsibility despite the Constitution Court's ruling.
He said the bill was approved by the House of Representatives and the whole legislative process was scrutinised in the first, second and third readings in parliament by the House as well as by the Senate.
If a bill, particularly a financial bill, had been rejected by parliament, the government would definitely have been obliged to take responsibility, he said.