Dr. Vayo revealed that the People's Party has prepared three petitions to fight the case involving 44 MPs. He acknowledged that each case differs individually and criticized the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for not providing a full opportunity to defend themselves.
On 31 Mar 2026 GMT+7, Dr. Vayo Asawarungroj, party-list MP and deputy leader of the People's Party (PP), spoke about the NACC's resolution to submit the case of 44 Move Forward MPs proposing an amendment to Section 112 to the Supreme Court. He said they have prepared three petitions: first, a petition requesting the Supreme Court to issue an alternative order allowing the MPs to continue their duties. For example, in the case of Mr. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut, party-list MP and PP leader, they pointed out to the court that a parliamentary democracy requires a chief opposition leader in the House of Representatives. Losing this role harms democracy. Second, a petition asking the court to reject the complaint. Third, a petition requesting the court to order the NACC to reconsider the case. They believe the NACC violated laws and its internal regulations in several steps. For instance, in the case of Mr. Suchart Trakulkasemsub, accused of accepting gold bribes while heading the team investigating them, they requested full disclosure of his involvement, but have yet to receive any response despite multiple follow-ups, including a written petition last week.
Dr. Vayo added that the process has violated many regulations, such as not permitting them to present witnesses or documentary evidence. Mostly, they requested only one witness each, but the NACC still denied permission. He believes the NACC has not allowed the accused to fully defend themselves. The NACC has almost conducted the case unilaterally, while their side can only submit documents to counter the allegations. For example, in the case of Mr. Natthapong or Ms. Natheepat Kulsesitsit, former party-list MPs of Move Forward, accused of bailing a defendant in a Section 112 case, court records showed the case was actually a Section 116 charge, a mischaracterization. They protested and asked to present additional evidence, but were refused. Nonetheless, they have documented everything, and while there may be legal actions regarding the NACC's statute of limitations, they can wait for the right timing.
When asked if each individual's petition differs, Dr. Vayo said each petition is indeed different; they do not copy and paste. However, the NACC's work is almost entirely copy-pasted. Ninety-eight percent of their side's arguments are unique. Lawyers work closely with each individual case; no two are the same because each person's thoughts and reasoning are distinct. He said they will continue to fight in this manner.