The Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a petition seeking its ruling on whether the 2001 Thai-Cambodian memorandum of understanding on joint development in the Gulf of Thailand breaches the Thai Constitution.
Deputy Palang Pracharath Party leader Paiboon Nititawan lodged the petition, which claimed the 2001 MoU had not been approved by parliament before it was signed.
It was used by the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in negotiating maritime interests with Cambodia.
Mr Paiboon argued that the issue was in violation of his rights under sections 3, 25, and 43 of the constitution and asked the Constitutional Court to order both parties to stop using the controversial MoU.
In its ruling, the judges said that documents and evidence presented to the court by the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs indicate the matter concerned the duties of the state as outlined in Chapter 5 of the charter.
The judges said that there was no evidence to support Mr Paiboon's claim that his rights were violated by the actions of both the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The judges also noted that Mr Paiboon's claim was merely his personal opinion about the legality of the MoU.
The court dismissed the petition by a vote of 6:3 because it did not meet the criteria outlined in Section 46 of the law on court procedures. The majority judges were Nakharin Mektrairat, Panya Udchachon, Udom Sittiwirattham, Wiroon Saengthian, Banjong Wongprat and Udom Rathamarit.
Mr Paiboon submitted the petition to the court in mid-June after the Ombudsman failed to forward his request for court intervention within the 60-day submission deadline.
Upon lodging the petition, he claimed that despite previously acknowledging that the MoU had not won parliamentary approval, the department and the ministry continued using it as a reference to what has been agreed by both nations regarding the 26,000 square kilometres of territorial waters in the Gulf of Thailand, which Thailand has sovereignty over.
Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa, however, has defended the MoU, saying it was not a treaty and contained no obligatory clauses and that the two governments had not made any agreement regarding it.
Mr Maris insisted the MoU did nothing to compromise Thailand’s sovereignty over an overlapping claims area (OCA) on Koh Kood in the border province of Trat, as it imposed no obligations.