Supachai warned against deciding the Senate election case by public cheers, stating it is not a 'who helps whom' game. He emphasized that social momentum cannot outweigh evidence and legal principles, underscoring that the Supreme Court is the genuine standard.
12 Sep 2026 GMT+7 Mr. Supachai Jaisamut, party-list MP and legal chairman of the Bhumjaithai Party, shared his views on the debate over the opinions of Panel 26 and Panel 36 regarding the Senate election case on Facebook, saying the issue should not be reduced to a simple question of 'who helps whom' but should be assessed on which side's opinion is more grounded in facts, evidence, and legal principles.
Supachai pointed out that the key issue lies in Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 62 of the Act on the Election of Senators, which set the standards as follows: "There must be credible evidence that" a violation has occurred. Therefore, accusing someone cannot rely solely on the general accusation or selectively believe only evidence supporting the charges. What must be seriously considered is the observation found in Panel 26’s case file that some factual determinations may be contradictory—for example, the same act was used to support allegations in one file but led to dismissal of the case in another. This raises direct questions about consistency in weighing evidence.
At the same time, Supachai said Panel 36 should base its evidence evaluation on the Supreme Court rulings in Senate election cases, as these represent established standards rather than creating new criteria. The key point from the Supreme Court rulings is that it must be proven both that the alleged act actually occurred and that evidence links it to the accused candidate; if this cannot be proven, the court will dismiss the case, as clearly shown in case numbers ลต สว 8/2568 and ลต สว 55/2568. Supachai emphasized this is the core of the matter.
Supachai also stated that Senate election cases should not be judged by the number of news reports, press conferences, or political pressure, but must clearly answer who did what, where, how, and whether there is evidence linking the person in question. "Can Panel 36 disagree with Panel 26?—Yes, but such opinions must have legal reasons and support."
Supachai concluded that once Supreme Court rulings have established the principles, adhering to the court’s approach as the standard for weighing evidence is far more reasonable than deciding cases based on social trends. In the justice process, 'accusations' are not the same as 'proof.' And social sentiment cannot outweigh evidence and the law. .
