The nation's political parties are to kick off a process to seek amendments to the charter. The main focus is a clause regarding politicians' ethics and a law governing the dissolution of parties to prevent political upheavals.
The People's Party, the latest offshoot of the defunct Move Forward Party (MFP), and Pheu Thai, now coalition party leader, have common ground in pushing for changes in two areas, a section of the 2017 constitution involving politicians' ethics, and also the organic law on parties authorising a party's dissolution, and other heavy penalties such as a 10-year ban from politics, or even a lifetime ban, for politicians.
The Constitutional Court dissolved the MFP and slapped a 10-year ban on its executives, including adviser Pita Limjaroenrat on Aug 7, ruling its campaign to amend Section 112 or the lese majeste law harboured an intention to corrode the constitutional monarchy.
The following week, it removed Pheu Thai's Srettha Thavisin from office as PM for breach of ethics after he appointed ex-convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister.
The People's Party argues the Constitutional Court is given too much power to make arbitrary rulings and handing down harsh and disproportionate penalties such as dissolving parties.
The proposed changes are intended to make party dissolution more difficult, by requiring the Criminal Court's final ruling on this.
At the same time, it proposes halving the 10-year ban for politicians. The party argues that strict ethical requirements have given way to judicial lawfare against some politicians who dare to challenge the old establishment.
The amendment is an attempt by lawmakers to combat this, in which the justice system is being used to attack political opponents.
While "lawfare" is deplorable, it begs the question of what parliamentarians will do to maintain their ethical standards.
The harsh reality is: few, if any politicians, ever show sufficient spirit to curb their own errant behaviour. Resigning from a position in a show of accountability is not the norm for political office-holders in Thailand.
A plethora of cases exists to show that politicians tend to turn a blind eye to their colleagues' untoward behaviour.
Of course, there are committees policing ethics in our bicameral parliament. Yet they behave like tiger papers.
Take the case of the ethics committee of the military-appointed Senate which expired in May. Last year, the Upper House ethics committee probed the case of a senator who helped an abusive, under-qualified ex-girlfriend get a job with a state agency, only to issue a mere warning. The measure was endorsed by a Senate majority.
Needless to say, the charter court's drastic rulings have caused a stir.
However, the court's citation of ethics in Mr Srettha's downfall has a positive side in forcing Pheu Thai and Paetongtarn Shinawatra to perform tough checks of contenders for the new cabinet. With a proper filtering process, this cabinet hopefully will be free from mafia or those with a shady past.
Indeed, elected lawmakers in public office do not have to wait for "lawfare" to dictate what is ethical. It is their primary duty to select people with integrity and credibility and an unblemished track-record for big jobs, to set a political norm and move politics forward.