The Speaker of the House has rejected a citizen-led bill aimed at repealing legal legacies from the October 6 coup, a move that has sparked intense political backlash.
The decision, which blocks a legislative proposal backed by nearly 60,000 signatures, centers on whether the bill falls under the constitutional categories required for citizen-initiated legislation. While parliamentary officials claim the rejection was due to procedural and structural errors in the draft, opposition members and civil rights networks argue the ruling undermines fundamental democratic rights.
Parliamentary officials defend the ruling
The Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, Siroj Paetphan, clarified on November 9 that the Speaker did not personally reject the bill, but rather the Second Deputy Speaker, Lertsak Pattanachaikul, made the decision after a review of the document. Officials stated the bill was not rejected in its entirety but failed to meet the specific criteria for citizen-initiated laws under the Constitution.
The legislative office found that the bill’s content, which seeks to amend various sections of the Criminal Code, did not align with its title or its stated principles. The agency noted that the draft was not formatted correctly for amending the Criminal Code and had previously requested that the 26 original initiators revise the document to ensure consistency.
Siroj Paetphan emphasized that the process was not a dismissal of the 60,000 names collected. If the initiators want to propose the Act again, they may request the Secretariat of the House to help draft it or provide consultation to ensure the draft is correct according to the Constitution,
Siroj stated.
Opponents cite constitutional rights
The rejection has drawn sharp criticism from the People’s Party and the 6 October Legacy Erasure network. Parit Wacharasindhu, a People’s Party MP and opposition whip, argued that the bill directly concerns freedom of expression, which should qualify it under Chapter 3 of the Constitution regarding the rights and liberties of the Thai people.
The parliamentary ruling claimed the bill did not fit Chapter 3 or Chapter 5 (Duties of the State) because amending criminal penalties is a direct power of the state. However, activists argue that because the law regulates penalties for expressions of opinion, it is inherently a matter of civil liberty.
Sasinan Thamnitinan, a People’s Party MP, questioned the logic of the decision, suggesting that if every criminal law amendment is classified as a state power, citizens would be unable to propose laws to protect their own rights.
The legal stakes of the 1976 legacy
The proposed legislation sought to repeal Order No. 41 of the Administrative Reform Council, issued following the 1976 coup. This order increased penalties for various offenses, including defamation of officials and certain political expressions.
Specifically, the bill aimed to revert penalties for certain offenses to the rates established in the 1956 Criminal Code. Penalties under Section 112 were increased from a maximum of seven years to a range of three to 15 years following the coup, which critics say limits judicial discretion.
The impact of these legal legacies remains a point of contention. Sasinan Thamnitinan noted that individuals remain impacted by the consequences of the law originating from the coup order.
Protests and next steps
The 6 October Legacy Erasure network had announced plans to appeal the decision. A demonstration is scheduled for November 10 at 4:30 p.m. at the Parliament entrance to express solidarity and demand a review of the ruling.
The People’s Party is also considering formal opposition to the use of discretion. Nattaphong Ruengpanyawut, the opposition leader, stated the party would prepare a letter to protest what they view as an improper use of power regarding the rejection of a bill supported by nearly 60,000 citizens.
Legal experts and opposition members have suggested two potential paths forward: filing a case with the Administrative Court or having Members of Parliament introduce the bill directly into the House.
