House Legal Panel Affirms Authority to Summon Prime Minister
The House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Human Rights voted 7-0 to summon the prime minister to parliament after officials failed to respond to earlier requests for explanations. Committee vice-chair Piya-rat Chongthep insisted the vote was legally valid despite a Pheu Thai MP's resignation lowering the quorum threshold. Bhumjaithai Party MPs plan an ethics complaint against the committee chair, but Piya-rat says the panel acted fully within its statutory authority under the 2015 summons law.
Prachachon Party list MP Piya-rat Chongthep, in his capacity as vice-chair of the House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Human Rights, gave an interview regarding the committee's resolution summoning the prime minister to provide explanations. He stated the committee's vote was conducted within the proper quorum framework and in full accordance with the law.
The committee's full membership totals 15 members from both government and opposition sides. Under voting rules, a quorum requires more than half, or no fewer than 8 members. However, Chaiyaphum MP Siwa Phongthiradul, a Pheu Thai Party committee member, submitted his resignation during the meeting, reducing the number of serving members to 14. This lowered the quorum threshold to 7 members. Therefore, the 7-0 vote at the committee meeting constituted a valid quorum and carries full legal effect.
Regarding confusion over a new committee member, Piya-rat noted that although reports emerged in the afternoon that the Bhumjaithai Party had nominated Mahasarakham MP Kamkai Udomsap as a replacement, the committee had not received an official appointment letter from the House Speaker. Moreover, Kamkai immediately resigned at that time, before the House voted in the evening to approve a new Pheu Thai member — a vote that occurred after the committee had already concluded its business and adjourned.
When asked about Minister Attached to the Prime Minister's Office Pharadon Prisananantakul's challenge to the committee's authority to summon the prime minister, Piya-rat expressed surprise, noting Pharadon is a former House deputy speaker. He emphasized the action relied not only on parliamentary meeting regulations but also on Section 13 of the 2015 Act on Summons by Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
"The law clearly states that if a minister or the prime minister fails to compel officials or agencies under their supervision to provide explanations to the committee as summoned, that minister or prime minister must assume responsibility and personally appear before the House of Representatives to explain the reasons," Piya-rat said.
He added that the committee had sent follow-up letters to the Office of the Prime Minister and the House Speaker since early October, setting an October 22 deadline for a response. When no reply came and no officials were sent to explain, the committee deemed the prime minister to have ignored the order. The panel therefore followed the legal timeline under Section 13 by referring the matter to the House Speaker to notify the prime minister to appear before parliament within 15 days of receiving the letter.
Asked about the five Bhumjaithai Party committee members preparing an ethics complaint against Prachachon Party list MP Rangsiman Rome in his capacity as committee chair, Piya-rat said he was ready to cite the law in defense. He noted the 2015 Act specifies that if the committee performs its duties according to law, there is no wrongdoing; only if it neglects its duties would there be an offense of malfeasance. Every step taken by the committee, he insisted, has been fully and correctly executed within the legal framework.
