Tawee cites the Constitutional Court ruling to remind the Election Commission (EC) that it is not a court; if the case meets the "reasonable evidence" threshold, it must be referred to the Supreme Court. He emphasizes the Senator vote-rigging case as a historic matter and a test of trust in independent organizations.
On 30 Jul 2026, Pol. Col. Tawee Sodsong, leader of the Prachachat Party, posted on Facebook about the situation as Thai society closely watches the historic decision by the Election Commission (EC) regarding a resolution under the 2018 Act on the Acquisition of Senators. This involves over 229 individuals including party executives, members of parliament, and senators. He stated that the EC's decision impacts not only those involved but also serves as a crucial test of the rule of law, the credibility of independent organizations, and public confidence in the country's legal principles. Drawing from public law and his experience with the Constitutional Court (ruling 1/2569), he offered the following points:
1. The EC is an independent organization under the Constitution, Article 3, paragraph two, and Article 215, which requires independent bodies to operate under the rule of law. This must be done with honesty, fairness, courage, and impartiality. Being an "independent organization" does not grant discretionary power to act arbitrarily or distort law enforcement for personal benefit. Rather, it means independence from political domination, personal relationships, and conflicts of interest to uphold public interest and justice.
2. What concerns society are the chronological facts showing that while 138 senators are under investigation for election fraud, the same Senate approved five of seven EC commissioners to hold office.
- Mr. Thitikhet Nuchanat, whose term had ended, continued serving because the Senate did not approve the newly nominated replacement.
- Four other EC commissioners—Mr. Narong Klanwarin, Mr. Anan Suwanrat, Mr. Narong Rakroi, and Mr. Jiruth Wisaljit—were approved by the current Senate. These facts raise reasonable questions about whether the investigation involving individuals who helped approve EC commissioners can proceed without bias or emotional ties. Even without misconduct, public confidence is affected by this apparent conflict of interest.
3. Questionable conduct involving conflicts of interest favoring personal ties over correctness, enabling corruption, includes:
- EC Regulation No. 122, requiring the same candidate number to be used in both morning and afternoon sessions, raising concerns it may allow organized voting or "vote locking," undermining secret ballot principles per Article 33.
- Vote blocking or vote buying leading to abnormal election results where 138 elected senators received clustered scores between about 50–79 points, while many other candidates scored only 20–28 points.
- Appointment of the 36th subcommittee to dismiss complaints, despite the 26th subcommittee having conducted the direct investigation.
- Changing the EC Secretary-General's evaluation from "fail" to "pass."
- Rejecting investigation files from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), despite claims of evidence regarding financial trails and other issues.
These facts demand clear and transparent explanations to maintain trust in the election process.
4. The "reasonable evidence" standard is the legal threshold the EC must adhere to.
Section 62 of the 2018 Act on the Acquisition of Senators states that if there is "reasonable evidence" of actions compromising a fair and honest election, the EC must submit a petition to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Court ruling 1/2569 (page 19), citing Senate meeting records during the bill's consideration, clearly explains that the EC's review uses public law standards, not the criminal law standard requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Emphasizing that the Supreme Court is the adjudicator.
The Prachachat Party leader also said that if there are facts or initial evidence that reasonable persons would believe indicate wrongdoing, that suffices for the EC to submit the case to the Supreme Court for investigation and ruling. Comparing to Criminal Procedure Code Section 66, which allows a court to issue an arrest warrant based on "reasonable evidence," the Section 62 standard is not higher. Given the case file reportedly contains over 80,000 pages, with mathematical and other evidence, the issue is not whether guilt is proven beyond doubt—that is the Supreme Court's role—but whether the minimum legal threshold is met.
5. Public law requires state power exercise to prioritize public interest over private benefit and to maintain public confidence in justice processes. Given the facts and concerns, the most legally consistent solution is for the EC to exercise its Section 62 power to file a petition and submit the entire case file to the Supreme Court for investigation and ruling. The Constitution entrusts the Supreme Court with final authority in such cases. Referral does not mean a decision on guilt but allows justice to proceed as the law prescribes.
Pol. Col. Tawee concluded that Thai society desires a just ruling based on truth and law. Injustice in election processes threatens democracy and the rule of law, leading to societal division and conflict.