This thesis on Analysis of the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 36/2542 studies problems in interpreting Section 216(4) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand which provides that the ministership of an individual Minister terminates upon being sentenced by a judgment to imprisonment. The interpretative problems are as to whether the judgment shall be final and imprisonment shall be in fact imposed or not. The Constitutional Court’s Decision and relevant facts are analyzed in accordance with the rule of law, i.e. the principle of legal interpretation and judicial conduct. In interpreting the Constitution, the general principle of legal interpretation shall be applied since the Constitution does not stipulate any specific rule on interpretation. Thus, the literal and intentional interpretation, In addition, Interested Constitutional judges should not participate in adjudication. Having studied the matter, I have founded that a certain number of Constitutional judges do not comply with the rule of law mentioned above. For instance, principles of criminal law are used in interpreting the Constitution and interested Constitutional judges have participated in adjudication. Moreover, it has appeared that fault methods were used in counting votes by taking minority votes of four judges as a basis in drafting the central decision that de facto imprisonment is required pursuant to Section 216(4). Therefore, such fault interpretation has been regarded as a standard hitherto. The Following reasons may explain the situations here: 1. The reason that a certain number of Constitutional judges applied principle of criminal law in interpreting the Constitution would be that public law in Thailand is in developing progress. Most of the Constitutional Judges are familiar with criminal law. Consequently, legal methods in criminal law, especially method of interpretation of law, are used in Constitutional law. 2. The reason the interested Constitutional judges participated in adjudication would be that of problems relation to judiciany conducts. 3. The reason the minority votes were taken in drafting the decision would be that of procedural defects of the Constitutional Court. Solutions to future problems would be encouraging the development in the area of public law in Thailand, supplementing of procedural rule of the Constitutional Court and effecting the code of judiciany conducts. However, the rectification of the Decision No. 36/2542 can only be done through amendment of Section 216(4) of the Constitutional Law.
