The legal chief of the Bhumjaithai Party clarified the Senate election rigging case, explaining that Committees 26 and 36 have separate duties and should not be confused. He emphasized that the body with the legal authority to make final rulings or issue orders is the Election Commission (EC). He stressed that this case must be judged based on "evidence," not public opinion or trends. Tags: [Bhumjaithai Party, Senate election, Election Commission, legal process, investigation]
On 30 August 2026, Supachai Jaisamut, party-list Member of Parliament and legal chief of the Bhumjaithai Party, posted on Facebook explaining the procedures in the so-called "Senate rigging case." He clarified that Committees 26 and 36 have different roles and should not be mixed up. There is a common misunderstanding that both committees conduct investigations or that Committee 36 was set up to continue investigations after Committee 26. This is not the case. The process follows the Election Commission's regulations on investigation, inquiry, and final rulings from 2018 and its amendments, which separate the roles of case investigators, reviewers, and decision-makers. Committee 26 conducts investigation and inquiry.Tags: [Supachai Jaisamut, Senate rigging case, Committee 26, Committee 36, Election Commission regulations]
Committee 26 is the Central Investigation and Inquiry Committee. Its main duties are to investigate and inquire into facts, gather testimonial evidence, documents, and relevant proof, notify allegations, and give the accused the chance to explain or present evidence to refute the claims. It also prepares opinions to accompany the case file. Simply put, Committee 26 acts as the "case preparer." Once it completes the file, its role ends at this stage, and it must submit the file to the Election Commission's office for further processing under the regulations. Committee 26 has no authority to make final decisions on guilt or innocence.Tags: [Committee 26, investigation, case preparation, legal evidence, Election Commission]
Supachai further explained, what does Committee 36 do? Committee 36 is the Subcommittee on Resolution of Issues or Disputes, also called Committee 36.Tags: [Committee 36, dispute resolution, Election Commission process]
This committee was not established to "reinvestigate" instead of Committee 26 but functions at a later stage in the process. It reviews and filters the inquiry file after it has passed through the Election Commission's office, examines facts, evidence, and legal points, then prepares opinions to submit to the Election Commission for further consideration.Tags: [Committee 36, case review, legal assessment, Election Commission]
To clarify, Committee 26 = case preparation; Committee 36 = case review and opinion formulation; Election Commission = final decision-maker with legal authority. These are three distinct roles that must be separated. The process does not jump directly from Committee 26 to Committee 36.Tags: [Committee roles, legal process, Election Commission, case procedure]
After Committee 26 completes the case file, it must be submitted to the central Election Commission office. Responsible officials then analyze the file and prepare opinions according to their work units before the case proceeds to Committee 36 for review, filtering, and opinion drafting, prior to submission to the full Election Commission. The sequence can be explained as follows:Tags: [case procedure, Election Commission, Committee 26, Committee 36, legal workflow]
Committee 26 conducts investigation, inquiry, evidence gathering, and case preparation, while the Election Commission's office analyzes the file and prepares opinions. Committee 36 reviews and filters the case file and formulates opinions. Then, the Election Commission makes the final decision or issues orders. This distinction is crucial in the Senate rigging case. Understanding each committee's role shows that scrutiny should not focus solely on Committee 26's or Committee 36's opinions but must verify where the evidence originated, at which stage it entered the file, who submitted it, whether it was legally obtained, and whether the accused was given a fair chance to examine and contest the evidence. Especially if documents or information claimed to come from the DSI or external sources, it is vital to distinguish between "publicly disseminated information" and "evidence legally admitted into the case through EC procedures." These two are not the same.Tags: [case evidence, legal process, DSI, Election Commission, fairness]
Therefore, case consideration must begin with a correct understanding of each committee's role. Committee 26 prepares the case; Committee 36 filters the case; the Election Commission decides. Regardless of the stage, what must always prevail over political currents is verifying the source of evidence.Tags: [legal roles, evidence verification, political neutrality, Election Commission]
The process must comply with the law, and the accused must receive fair treatment. The severity of the case does not depend on media attention but on how credible the evidence is and whether the process used to obtain it is lawful. This procedure applies to all cases, whether involving Members of Parliament or Senators, just as it does in this case.Tags: [legal fairness, case procedure, credibility, MPs, Senators]