[ad_1]
December 2, 2020
1,089
Constitutional court unanimous resolution 9: 0 ‘Prayut’ is at home, army is not blamed for regulations, army paves way for people to benefit country
The reporter reported that It is reported that for the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Prime Minister, General Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Living in a hospice in the military camp, there were 9 unanimous votes that ruled the ministeriality of General Prayut. As the defendant did not finish.
Subsequently, the Constitutional Court published news from the Office of the Constitutional Court that revealed the essence of the decisions of the Constitutional Court. With the following content
The Constitutional Court ruled that the defendant’s home was also changed to a hospice in accordance with Army Regulations, whereby the 2005 Army hospice was assigned to a former high-ranking military commander who made contributions to the Army and Nation and he has served as an army commander. They have the right to stay in a hospice, the Army and Army may consider their suitability to support the water and electricity supply budget. As well as other expenses What is necessary to live as necessary and suitable for use.
When the defendant used to be the Army commander, he has the right to stay in an Army hospice and is entitled to support for the supply of electricity and water in accordance with the rules mentioned above. Even a civil prime minister has no right to stay in that hospice. Together with the granting of such rights to those who have the qualifications in accordance with the regulations, it is a normal commercial operation, which is the right of a person who is derived from the position of former Army chief.
Therefore, it was unanimous that General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s Minister, Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Applicant does not rescind the individual constitution under Section 140 paragraph one (5) along with Section 160 (5) and the Section 170 paragraph one (5) along with Section 186 paragraph one and Section 4 paragraph one (3) and the defendant has no conduct. Violently violates or fails to meet ethical standards.
