Society is holding its breath as the Constitutional Court will decide today if it will accept for deliberation -- or reject -- a petition by the Ombudsman regarding the use of the parliamentary meeting rules to reject the renomination of Move Forward Party (MFP) leader Pita Limjaroenrat as prime minister.
The Ombudsman sought the court ruling after parliament voted 394:312 against Mr Pita's renomination, following hours of heated debate on July 19.
In his view, such a resolution is unconstitutional, and there should be an injunction imposed while the court is considering the case.
Parliament chairman Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, meanwhile, suspended the PM voting session until tomorrow, pending the court decision.
It's crunch time as Pheu Thai has taking the lead from the MFP in forming a coalition government, after MFP's own attempt failed.
Mr Pita has been suspended as an MP over his holding of iTV shares. At press time, however, that the coalition pact has collapsed and the MFP has been forced out of the bloc.
The contentious resolution has caused a deep divide. The Ombudsman agreed with several law experts that the July 19 renomination was lawful.
By contrast, the use of meeting regulation No 41 to block Mr Pita's second bid is unconstitutional as, in effect, it means a compromise of the supreme law. The resolution is seen as a rotten tactic by the conservative bloc to boot out Mr Pita from the premiership race.
Even Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, the country's legal sage who serves the Prayut government, is at odds with the conservative camp. He pointed out that the charter imposes no restrictions for repeated PM nominations.
Previously, 115 law lecturers from 19 institutions signed a petition disputing the rejection of Mr Pita's renomination.
They are adamant the use of such a meeting regulation over the charter is tantamount to setting an unlawful norm given that no laws or regulations can overrule the supreme law.
They urged parliament to scrap the resolution, and be aware of the resulting potential impact as on the upcoming vote to select a prime minister. Under the current regulation, Pheu Thai's prime minister candidate Srettha Thavisin can be nominated only one time.
Political observers expect three possible reactions from the court today: it may throw out the petition; it may accept it for further deliberation without delaying the PM vote; or accept it with an injunction as requested by the Ombudsman.
Jarun Pukditanakul, a former Constitutional Court judge, said the charter court may reject the Ombudsman's petition on the grounds that it has no authority "to order parliament, the Senate or the House to suspend a PM vote" as parliament's regulations are the business of the legislative branch.
It's reported also that some pro-MFP law experts also want the court to stay out of the matter. Instead, they want parliament to tackle the issue without court interference.
Today's court ruling will set a precedent for politics. However, if the court eventually rejects the petition, as predicted by Mr Jarun, its decision is more to do with a technicality.
In that case, parliament must settle the case, and do whatever it can to respect the charter and maintain the rule of law.