Piyabutr Challenges Speaker's Rejection of Article 112 Bill
Move Forward Party Secretary-General Piyabutr Saengkanokkul has challenged the House Speaker's rejection of a bill to annul a 1976 order that increased Article 112 penalties. He argues the ruling violates constitutional rights to propose legislation and proposes both legal action and a new parliamentary bill as countermeasures. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions over lèse-majesté law reform in Thailand.
Move Forward Party Secretary-General Piyabutr Saengkanokkul posted on Facebook criticizing the House Speaker's rejection of a bill to annul the October 6, 1976 Revolutionary Council announcement. That announcement had increased penalties for Article 112 offenses to 3-15 years imprisonment. Piyabutr argues that annulling it would revert penalties to the pre-October 6 maximum of three years.
He makes three main points. First, the bill concerns criminal penalties and therefore falls under Category 3 rights and liberties of the Thai people, since criminal offenses inherently restrict individual rights and liberties, including freedom of expression. The Speaker's ruling was therefore incorrect.
Second, he questions whether the Speaker's ruling is final or can be challenged. He references a similar 2011 case when the Speaker, from the Pheu Thai Party, ruled that a bill to amend Article 112 did not fall under Category 3, blocking public sponsorship. Piyabutr warns that if the Speaker's ruling is unchallengeable, public legislative initiatives can be arbitrarily blocked.
Third, he argues the Speaker's ruling resembles an administrative order affecting rights and liberties, similar to a government agency denying a license. Since public sponsorship of bills is a fundamental right promoting direct democracy, courts should have jurisdiction to review such rulings on substantive grounds, not just procedural ones.
