Bangkok: Nakarin emphasized that the Constitutional Court is not a tool to harm the opposing side. Nakarin acknowledged that the Constitutional Court's image is being challenged by social trends, emphasizing that it is not a tool to harm opponents. He pointed out that some people will be dissatisfied with the rulings because they must determine between "wrong and right." He also reflected on the crisis of confidence stemming from the immaturity of Thai politics, which has not yet reached the point of accepting the rules for gaining and relinquishing power.

According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Nakarin Mektrirat, President of the Constitutional Court, presided over the opening ceremony of the Constitutional Court's 2026 Media Outreach Project. He answered questions from the media regarding the Constitutional Court's image in the public's perception, particularly concerning the challenges faced by academics and social trends. Critics questioned whether the Constitutional Court could be used as a tool to harm opponents within the rule of law, and whether restoring its image of neutrality is necessary. He responded that this is an evolutionary process. The Constitutional Court was established to adjudicate constitutional disputes. Cases are filed with the court from all sides, regardless of whether they are majority or minority. When disputes arise, they are brought before the court; a resolution is inevitable. Therefore, the acceptance of the court's decisions is inevitably difficult; ultimately, a side must be chosen, either right or wrong, and decisions cannot plea se everyone. The evolution of the court's image occurs when society and politics reach sufficient maturity. This means that resolving certain political issues requires rules acceptable to society, and a high level of societal maturity is necessary.

Social maturity means that the rules for gaining and relinquishing power must be at a level that is universally acceptable. Constitutional courts in almost every country, when viewed in general, almost all face problems in their initial stages. During their establishment, people are often confused about the purpose of the Constitutional Court, because when disputes arise, it is believed that other methods will be used to resolve issues. However, in the current Thai society, when constitutional problems arise, people see the Constitutional Court as a reliable resource. I believe that the court's decisions will provide sufficient explanation for Thai society to understand what the term "constitutional secrecy" means.

Mr. Nakarin also stated that constitutional courts in other countries face similar problems to ours, such as the case of the US president imposing tariffs on foreign goods. The US Supreme Court ruled that tax matters are within the authority of Congress, not the president. He questioned who the court was helping - a minority or the majority? Furthermore, the situation in South Korea is even more severe; the president declared martial law, and ultimately, Congress voted him out of office. However, the removal process had to go to the Constitutional Court for review to determine if Congress's actions were constitutional. Ultimately, he was removed. Therefore, the question is, which side is the majority or the minority really on? This is a similar problem to what is happening in Thailand. If we think emotionally, we will get one perspective, but if we think rationally, we will see that the problem is very complex. Once a matter goes to court, it will inevitably turn out one way or another.