Parit pointed out that the Appeal Court president's ruling allows citizens to directly sue the Election Commission (EC). He is pushing to expand the investigation into the Senate vote-rigging case, pressuring Sopon to reconsider his duties, and preparing the People's Party legal team to sue the House Speaker over potential misconduct.
At 09:00 on 10 Nov 2026 at the Parliament, Parit Watcharasindhu, party-list MP and deputy leader of the People's Party, speaking as chair of the opposition coalition coordination committee in the House of Representatives (opposition whip), commented after the Election Commission (EC) disputed the Appeal Court president's ruling that citizens can sue the EC directly. He said this issue should be separated into two parts: efforts to hold the EC accountable for misconduct, and efforts to prosecute those involved in Senate vote-rigging who may not be among the 77 individuals the EC has charged.
Parit continued that regarding attempts to hold the EC accountable for misconduct, there were earlier concerns that those pursuing action against the EC would be forced to go through the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). This raised doubts about whether the NACC, having origins tied to the current Senate, would investigate the EC transparently and fairly. Recent news said the Appeal Court president ruled that it is not necessary to go solely through the NACC; victims can file complaints directly to the court. The president interpreted "victims" in the Senate vote-rigging case as all citizens. This is a significant development, providing citizens a direct legal channel to sue the EC.
Parit also addressed efforts to prosecute those involved in Senate vote-rigging beyond the 77 charged individuals. He understands the EC is trying to ask the Constitutional Court to rule that the Supreme Court cannot accept these cases directly, whether concerning qualifications of two Senators from Amnat Charoen province or potential future cases. However, many observers have noted that the Constitution does not grant the Constitutional Court authority to rule on the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court.
"In truth, the constitutional provision mentions only the Constitutional Court's power to rule on the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and independent organizations. Therefore, if the EC insists on submitting this petition to the Constitutional Court, I hope the court will reject it," Parit said.
Parit further said that the problem reflected in recent events is that independent organizations are free from public scrutiny. The key issue for our political system design is how to ensure independent bodies are free from political interference but not exempt from public accountability. If independent organizations act improperly, there must be mechanisms to hold them accountable.
He added that currently there are three mechanisms: 1. If an independent body acts improperly, victims can sue directly in court, as defined by the Appeal Court president in the Senate vote-rigging case where victims mean all citizens; 2. Regarding those involved in vote-rigging beyond the 77 Senators charged, the Constitution allows that if the Supreme Court investigation uncovers facts implicating others beyond those 77, the EC must also charge those individuals for Supreme Court consideration; and 3. Citizens' direct right to initiate removal proceedings against independent organizations, a right that existed in the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions but was removed in the 2017 Constitution. This constitutional amendment proposal has been submitted by civil society since March but the House Speaker has yet to convene a joint parliamentary session to consider it after 7-8 months.
Asked about the EC's explanation that it asked the Constitutional Court whether the EC's ruling is final, and their claim they do not oppose the Supreme Court's authority, Parit said he understands that on the merits, this is an attempt to dispute the Supreme Court's recent decision to accept a case regarding two Senators' qualifications from Amnat Charoen province. The EC has already objected to the Supreme Court. The problem, however, is that the EC is not only opposing the Supreme Court but also trying to petition the Constitutional Court. This is likely unconstitutional because the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction covers only the House of Representatives, the Senate, and independent organizations, not the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court.
When asked to elaborate on the statement by Natthapong Ruangpanyawut, party-list MP and leader of the People's Party in the House, that the party will consider suing House Speaker Sopon Sarum based on the Appeal Court president's ruling, Parit said the party's legal team will study possible mechanisms. The important matter now is to identify which aspects of Sopon's conduct the party disagrees with and considers potentially improper, including 1. the operation of parliamentary committees, and 2. the recent ruling that blocked public-initiated bills to repeal the legacy of the 6 October 1976 coup. As House Speaker, Sopon must take responsibility for this ruling, even though it was delivered by the First Deputy Speaker. Ultimately, the Speaker is accountable for such decisions.
Additionally, 3. the opposition MPs have petitioned the House Speaker to refer a case to the Supreme Court to establish an independent NACC investigative committee regarding the dismissal of a complaint about former Transport Minister Saksayam Chidchob's shares. Over 150 days have passed since the complaint was filed with no response. By comparison, a similar complaint under Section 236 by the "Blue Senate" MPs against the NACC concerning gold bribery took just over 40 days from submission to establishment of an independent investigative committee. The party plans to study legal avenues for filing lawsuits following the Appeal Court president's ruling.
"When the House Speaker decides not to forward the case to the court, it poses a significant problem because the Constitution states that the Speaker does not determine whether the NACC is at fault. But if there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, the Speaker must forward the matter to the court to establish a committee to investigate the facts further," Parit said.