The Supreme Court judged Kanokwan Wilawan, former deputy minister of education. Serious violation of ethical standards Encroaching on Khao Yai Forest, Prachinburi Province, withdrawing political rights for life
February 22, 2023 – At the Supreme Court, Sanam Luang, the Court scheduled to hear the verdict on Black Case No. Khom Jor. 2/2565 between the National Anti-Corruption Commission or the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), former petitioner Mrs. Kanokwan Wilawan. Deputy Minister of Education, who objected to serious violations or non-compliance with ethical standards
In this case, the NACC petitioner concluded that on February 14, 2002, the objector requested the issuance of land title deeds in the area of Moo 15, Noen Hom Subdistrict, Mueang Prachin Buri District. Prachinburi Province, area 30-2-80.5 rai, claiming to have bought the said plot of land from Mr. Thiw Malisorn in 1990, but Mr. Thiw did not exist. Neither has ever made use of the land in Khao Yai National Park. and the boundary of the permanent forest of Khao Yai Forest cause the state to lose land in the national park area to the opposers Issuance of title deed No. 41158, Noen Hom Subdistrict, Mueang Prachin Buri District Prachinburi Province therefore unlawful and is a serious damage The opposer continued to hold the land until he became Deputy Minister of Education.
The NACC, the petitioner then asked the Supreme Court. There is a judgment or order that Respondents seriously violate or fail to comply with ethical standards. The opposer shall stop performing duties from the date the Supreme Court accepts the petition until a judgment is rendered. to remove the objector from office from the day off from performing duties Revoke the right to stand for election of the opposer. And revoke the right to vote for a period of not more than ten years according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2560, Section 235, the Organic Act on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, B.E. 2561, Section 87, and the ethical standards of the judges of the Constitutional Court. and position holders in independent organizations including the Auditor General and Head of the Administrative Office of the Constitutional Court and Independent Organizations B.E. 2561, Article 8 and Article 11, 17 in conjunction with Article 27.
On August 26, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered that the petitioner’s petition be accepted for consideration. And ordered Mrs. Korakawan, the objector, to stop performing duties until a judgment is issued. According to the Organic Act on Counter Corruption B.E. 2561, Section 81 in conjunction with Section 87, paragraph three, and the regulations of the Supreme Court on the trial and adjudication of cases concerning serious violations or non-compliance with ethical standards. 2018, Article 12, paragraph two, and the first trial was held on October 5, 2022, and the trial continued until the process was completed.
Today, the NACC, the petitioner, came to the court but Mrs. Kanokwan did not go to court
The Supreme Court considered The objector filed an objection that The objector gave information in the investigation of the right by mistake by informing Mr. Thiw’s surname as Mali Son. Mr. Mee sold to Mr. Tew. Then Mr. Thiw sold it to Mr. Sunthorn. Then Mr. Sunthorn let the objector take advantage. The boundary of the National Park that was drawn No. 3 by Mr. Kanit Petchpradap has been done correctly. The opposer is qualified according to regulations and laws. request to dismiss
Subsequently, the Supreme Court examined the witness of the petitioner on 22,28 Dec. ’22 and examined the witness of the objection on 10 Jan. 2023.
The Supreme Court ruled on the first issue that Opponent who held the position of Deputy Minister of Education Committing a conflict between personal interests and common interests According to the Ethical Standards Clause 11 in conjunction with Clause 27, paragraph two or not, it is considered that an act that is a conflict between personal interests and public interests must be a situation or action in which a person in that organization or agency has personal benefits which may affect the judgment, order or exercise of discretion in the performance of duties in accordance with that person’s position
It may be the power and duty to supervise, supervise, control, or inspect in matters that are relevant to him/herself. when there is no objection Direct authority to supervise, supervise, control, or inspect the operations of the Department of Lands, the Department of Forestry, and the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. public interest According to the ethical standards, item 13 in conjunction with item 27, paragraph two
next problem though The opposer seeks unlawful benefits for himself which is considered to be of a serious nature according to the Ethical Standards, Article 8 in conjunction with Article 27, paragraph one, and the objector commits an act that causes damage to his dignity. of holding the position of Deputy Minister of Education considered to be serious According to the Ethical Standards Article 17 in conjunction with Article 27 paragraph two?
The objector cited a message to the rights investigation officer that the objector acquired the land by purchasing it from Mr. Thiw Malison in 1990 and the objector utilized the land by planting a garden, planting mangoes, santol and other seasonal plants. Objected to testify and testified during the investigation that Mr. Thew Malithong sold the land he possessed for the benefit of Mr. Sunthorn Wilawan, the father of the objector.
After that, Mr. Sunthorn let the objector take possession of the benefits. which is equal to the objector admitting that Mr. Thiw Malison does not really exist. Opponents knew from the beginning that The owner of the land is Mr. Thew Malithong and Mr. Thew Malithong sells the land to Mr. Soonthorn. not an objection The objector likes to be notified. Information to the officials to be true to the fact that the objector did not buy the land himself. But Mr. Sunthorn was the buyer of the land. which the objector testified that The objector took possession of the land by planting bamboo trees, sapwood trees, vegetables, kitchen gardens, mango trees, santol trees and other seasonal crops.
When considering the report of the analysis of photographs The weather in Noen Hom district using aerial photographs in 1953, 1967, 1973, 1989, 2003 and 2010
When conducting a field survey on April 4-6, 2022, it appeared that there was no exploitation in the area with dense forest and rocky outcrops, which was Mr. Thawatchai Srisomboon, a representative. of the opposing person participating in the land inspection Both photographic map scholars specialize The Bureau of Engineering and Geological Survey, Royal Irrigation Department testified that there was no sign of gardening or fruit planting during any year.
indicate that during the period that the objector claimed that Mr. Khod, Mr. Mee, Mr. Thew and the objector himself had occupied the land continuously The land has not yet been utilized as evidence of stability and economic benefits. which is a condition Issuing title deeds in accordance with Article 5 of the Regulations of the National Land Allocation Board, No. 12, in line with The testimony of Mr. Hom and Mr. Tew that The condition of the land is gravel mixed with some laterite soil, and reports of analysis of aerial photographs and maps. What the objector claimed did not mention bamboo, sapwood, mango or santol trees. And analysis of aerial photographs and land surveys found no surrounding trees, bamboo trees, and bucket trees. The objection claimed that Mr. Hom had made use of the land.
therefore cannot be heard as true The facts can be heard that while the objection asked for the title deed The opposer did not occupy it. land benefits The objection does not have the right to possess the land. The fact that the objector gave a statement to the rights investigator that in 1990 the objector bought the land from Mr. Thiw, built around 1957 by Mr. Thiw, the objector occupied the land all along. Therefore, it can be heard that it is a false statement. The objector is not a qualified person applying for the issuance of title deeds under section 58 bis (3) of the Land Code. The Department of Lands issued the title deed No. 43358 to the opposing person is not like When the objector requests the issuance of land title deeds without legal qualifications Then got the land title deed and still holds the land title deed until the day that the opposer has been the deputy minister of education until now
Therefore, it is an unlawful exploitation for oneself according to the ethical standards, item 8, and is considered to have a serious nature according to the ethical standards, item 27, paragraph one, both such actions affecting image and damage to the reputation of the opposer holding the position of deputy minister Ministry of Education Although it was not a direct exercise of his powers and duties because it might cause the public to lose faith in the opposer’s position as deputy minister of education.
therefore causing The detriment of the honor of being the deputy minister of education as well. When such action is regarded as causing serious damage to law enforcement, it is a case of serious nature according to the ethical standards. Article 27, paragraph two, judges that the opposer violates or fails to comply with the ethical standards seriously. according to the constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, section 234, paragraph one (1), paragraph three and paragraph four, in conjunction with the Anti-Corruption Act B.E. 1 and item 17 in conjunction with item 27, paragraph two
Let the objector go away. from the position of Deputy Minister of Education from August 26, 2022, which was the date of the Supreme Court’s order for the objector to stop performing his duty To revoke the right to stand for election of opposers forever. Including not having the right to hold any political positions According to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 235, paragraph three, paragraph four, and revoke the right to vote of the opposer for a period of 10 years from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Other requests in addition to
