The Criminal Court has acquitted former Future Forward MP Tanwarin Sukkhapisit in a case concerning shareholdings in media-related companies, which are prohibited for MP candidates. The ruling stands in contrast to a 2020 Constitutional Court ruling, which disqualified Tanwarin from her seat on the same grounds.

The Criminal Court ruled on 22 October to acquit film director Tanwarin Sukkhapisit, former Future Forward MP, of illegally standing for election while holding shares in media companies. In this case, Tanwarin was accused of allowing a political party to nominate her as a party-list MP candidate despite knowing that she was not eligible.

In 2020, she was disqualified by the Constitutional Court for the same alleged offence.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling stated that Tanwarin held shares in 2 filmmaking companies before registering to run for MP. The Court also stated that her conduct was similar to that of Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, former leader of the Future Forward Party, who was also disqualified for holding shares in a media company.

Tanwarin was declared unqualified for the position as of 6 February 2019, the registration date for party-list MP candidates with the Election Commission.

By contrast, the Criminal Court’s ruling stated that Tawarin’s two film production companies did not engage in publishing newspapers or mass media, but rather worked on commission to produce advertisements as required by a client and had no channels by which to disseminate their work.

The public prosecutor also failed to show how the companies could influence public perception or create any political advantage. The Court stated that Tanwarin ran as a party-list MP candidate under the Future Forward Party since she sincerely believed she possessed the necessary qualifications. Meanwhile, it remained unclear how she had any criminal intent.

The Criminal Court gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking after the ruling, Tanwarin said that she felt relieved after fighting the case since 2020, which she said had harmed her reputation.

When asked whether she would return to politics, Tanwarin said it was difficult to answer. After being disqualified and losing her MP position, she has continued to participate in activities with the Move Forward Party, the successor to the disbanded Future Forward Party, and then with its successor, the People’s Party.

The former MP also revealed that her reason for running for election was her determination to push for marriage equality and gender equality, but these have now been achieved. She said from now on, she would focus on working behind the scenes.

How could the rulings in the two courts be so contradictory?

The conflicting rulings have raised questions about judicial coherence, particularly in political cases. Dr Munin Pongsapan of Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law told Prachatai that the two cases in the two courts were decided under different legal frameworks.

The Constitutional Court’s case concerned determining whether an MP candidate met the qualifications required under the Constitution or relevant laws. By contrast, the Criminal Court considered the case under the Organic Act on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives, which specifies the qualifications necessary to serve as an MP.

Given that they carry a criminal penalty, rulings in criminal courts must demand stricter proof of guilt, particularly regarding the defendant’s intent as an element of a criminal offence.

Even though the Constitutional Court does not have the same restrictive requirements as the Criminal Court, Munin remarked that to prevent subsequent criminal liability, Constitutional Court proceedings, particularly in cases involving disqualification or party dissolution, should apply the same standard.

The law lecturer noted that the issues which come before the Constitutional Court rarely feature in normal courts, which give the accused the opportunity to defend themselves.

When the accused request the opportunity to present evidence or witnesses to prove their innocence in the Constitutional Court, those requests are often dismissed.

He suggested that the legal frameworks in the two courts be consistent and coherent with the same standards.

Constitutional Court’s changeable interpretations

In Tanwarin’s case, the companies registered engagement in media-related business among their objectives. However, they had never obtained authorization from the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and they did not actually engage in such business.

Nevertheless, the Court ruled that Tanwarin lacked the required qualifications to be an MP.

In the case of former Move Forward Party Leader Pita Limjaroenrat, which was heard later, the Court stated that to rule that an MP was disqualified for holding shares in a media company, the media company in question must engage in media-related business in practice.

Dr Munin stated that the changeable interpretations over what qualifies as a media business have direct consequences in the criminal case, as the law stipulates that a person lacking the required qualifications may face criminal liability for the same conduct. In Tanwarin’s case, the public prosecutor proceeded with the case despite the change in interpretation by the Constitutional Court.

He commented that the public prosecutor should not have proceeded with an indictment in this case, because in Pita’s case the Constitutional Court had already changed its interpretation regarding media shareholdings. This could have served as a guideline for the prosecution.

He asserted that if the public prosecutor appeals this case, it would only create further confusion in the Thai legal system.

Dr Munin also argued that the consideration of media holdings reflected an outdated assumption that holding shares in a media company allows a person to use the influence of that company in the media to gain an electoral advantage.

Nowadays, Munin said, everyone can communicate directly with the public through their social media platforms. Such restrictions may no longer be relevant.