Article 209 says, in part, that a minister must not retain more than 5 per cent of a company or partnership’s holdings. The article goes on to state that ministers must not commit any act which, by its nature, amounts to the administration or management of shares or affairs of a partnership or company.

The majority Constitution Court judges said the petition did not merit further deliberation by the court because petitioners – 28 senators – failed to demonstrate how the prime minister was involved in the management of Shin Corp since he became the prime minister in 2001 and in the lead-up to the sale of his family’s controlling stake in the company to Temasek Holdings of Singapore for Bt73.2 billion tax-free.

They said that although the court has the power to demand additional documentary evidence or witnesses, the Constitution Court’s decision whether to take up the petition for deliberation is based entirely on the petition’s arguments and accompanying evidence.

It is not the first time that the Thai public has been treated to the Constitution Court’s highly subjective and unusually flexible way of interpreting the highest law in the land.

The court’s interpretation of the Constitution is so flexible that it is virtually impossible to find any consistency in the court’s rulings from one case to another – let alone any coherence in legal precedents.In 2001, the National Counter Corruption Commission found Thaksin, then-newly appointed prime minister, guilty of asset concealment when it discovered Thaksin and his wife had transferred billions of baht worth of Shin Corp shares to nominees, and failed to report those transactions in assets statements submitted to the anti-graft agency.

The Constitution Court – breaking away from legal precedents – voted 8 to 7 to let Thaksin off the hook after he pleaded a lack of dishonest intent. The Constitution Court’s controversial ruling in 2001 saved Thaksin from a career-ending impeachment that not only would have removed him from the prime minister’s office but also would have barred him from politics for five years.

A 2000 ruling by the Constitution Court found the Democrat Party’s former secretary-general Sanan Kachornprasart guilty of the exact same charge of failing to submit accurate and complete asset statements while a member of the Cabinet. Unlike Thaksin, Sanan was not given the benefit of the doubt by the Constitution Court, and he was banished from politics.

Yesterday’s ruling by the Constitution Court was also flawed because it was based strictly on the letter of the constitutional law at the expense of its spirit – to prevent the abuse of power and penalise corrupt politicians, which the majority judges evidently failed to respect.

Worse, the unresolved dispute over the constitutionality of Thaksin’s alleged self-serving tendencies and actions is the very reason for the current political deadlock. Opposition is growing towards Thaksin’s beleaguered leadership that has been tarnished by a virtually unbroken string of corruption scandals and conflicts of interest. Given this climate, the Constitution Court was regarded as the last resort for the peaceful resolution of this political crisis that hinges on the most important question of the day: How do we Thais define a leader’s legitimacy to rule.

It is disappointing that the Constitution Court chose this most critical juncture to shirk its supreme responsibility and thereby confirm long-held the public perception of it as a sorry excuse for the arbiter of the highest law in the land.