The leader of the People’s Party led the charge in the Section 112 case, affirming that the proposed legislation was within parliamentary authority without intent to overthrow, while criticizing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for double standards compared to the “Saksayam” case.
On 24 April, Mr. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut, leader of the People’s Party (PPP), along with 10 other MPs, held a press conference regarding the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a petition from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) concerning serious ethical violations due to signing a proposal to amend Criminal Code Section 112. The court allowed the 10 sitting MPs to continue their duties, but under the condition they refrain from repeating the alleged conduct or making related statements.
Mr. Natthapong stated that the bill proposal was a normal legislative process with no intent to undermine the constitutional monarchy. However, this case reflects a deeper significance beyond his political future: the use of “legal warfare” to preserve the legacy of coups and benefit elite groups by diminishing power derived from the people. He also questioned the NACC’s standards by comparing the dismissal of the petition against Mr. Saksayam Chidchob, asking whether society views the treatment as equitable.
The People’s Party leader confirmed that despite the relief of not being suspended from duties, the party will continue its role as a vigorous opposition without increasing or lowering its level of activity. They are committed to driving political transition forward. Regarding the selection of new party executive committee members and opposition leadership positions, he asked for patience until the party’s general meeting on 26 April, noting that parliamentary procedures can proceed immediately without waiting for the new executives to be chosen.
Meanwhile, MP Dr. Wayo Aswarungroj, a party-list member, outlined their legal strategy, stating they will fully exercise their rights in the judiciary. They plan to request the court to summon external witnesses and documents, which were previously denied during NACC’s inquiry. He anticipates the case will take at least two years, given there are 44 respondents and tens of thousands of pages of evidence, each requiring careful examination to comply appropriately with court conditions.