Thai Campaigners Challenge Block on Bill to Reverse Coup Era Criminal Penalties

A petition with 59,503 signatures faces a parliamentary barrier

A Thai campaign backed by 59,503 signatories is preparing to appeal a parliamentary decision preventing its bill from advancing through the public petition process. The proposal would repeal Order No. 41 of the National Administrative Reform Council, a measure associated with the October 6, 1976 coup that increased criminal penalties, including those under Section 112.

The dispute concerns changes to penalties in 12 sections of the Criminal Code. Its most politically sensitive provision involves Section 112, the law protecting the monarchy. Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, secretary general of the Progressive Movement, says repealing the order would return its prison penalty to a maximum of three years, compared with the current range of three to 15 years.

Campaigners say reducing punishment for expression directly concerns constitutional rights. Parliamentary officials say the submission falls outside the subjects citizens may propose through this route and also has problems with its title and drafting format.

On November 9, 2026, House of Representatives Secretary General Sirote Phaetphan clarified who made the decision. Although the campaign and political objections had focused on House Speaker Sophon Saram, Sirote said Second Deputy Speaker Lertsak Phatthanachaikun issued the ruling under authority delegated by the speaker.

The campaign planned to go to parliament on November 10 to challenge the decision. The immediate issue is whether its proposal can enter the legislative process through a citizen initiative. Parliamentary officials say the organisers can submit a revised bill, while campaigners want the ruling reconsidered.

What the proposal would change

Order No. 41 changed the Criminal Code after the events of October 6, 1976. The campaign to remove the legacy of that coup seeks to repeal the order and change the penalties it introduced across 12 sections.

Section 112 has become the central public issue because of its effect on political expression and the length of imprisonment it permits. Under Piyabutr's explanation of the proposal, the maximum sentence would fall from 15 years to three years, a reduction of 12 years. The present minimum sentence is itself three years.

Piyabutr's account describes a return to the penalty that applied before October 6, 1976. The proposal therefore focuses on the severity of punishment while retaining a criminal offence under Section 112.

For people facing prosecution over expression, the length of a possible prison sentence is a concrete concern. Campaigners connect their proposal to freedom of expression, while People's Party MP Sasinan Thammanithinan has also called for fairness for people affected by cases involving political expression.

Why parliament says the submission cannot proceed

The parliamentary secretariat bases its position on Section 133(3) of the Constitution and the Act on the Submission of Legislative Proposals by Citizens, enacted in 2021. Through this process, citizens may propose legislation concerning Chapter III, which covers rights and liberties, or Chapter V, which covers duties of the state.

Sirote said officials examined the proposal and found that its substance concerned changes to criminal penalties. They concluded that it did not fall within the constitutional chapters required for a citizen initiative.

The secretariat also identified a drafting problem. According to Sirote, the changes to Criminal Code penalties did not match the bill's title and legislative principle, and the text did not follow the correct format for amending the code.

Officials contacted the 26 people identified as the initiative's organisers and asked them to revise the draft, he said. The organisers maintained their original submission, after which the matter went to Lertsak for a ruling.

The 26 organisers and the 59,503 signatories describe different groups within the campaign: those initiating the parliamentary submission and the wider body of people supporting it. Sirote's explanation focused on the organisers with whom officials had communicated.

Why campaigners say criminal penalties concern rights

The campaign's central argument is straightforward: a law that restricts expression or allows imprisonment affects a person's constitutional freedoms. Changing that law should therefore qualify as legislation about rights and liberties.

Sasinan, a People's Party MP, said changing punishments imposed on expression is directly connected to constitutional protection. She called on the speaker to reconsider the decision, disclose the reasoning and allow the proposal to be debated through an MP submission.

Piyabutr made a similar argument in a statement on November 8. Criminal offences restrict individual freedoms, he said, and imprisonment takes away a person's liberty. In his view, those connections bring the proposal within Chapter III.

The disagreement turns on how broadly parliament interprets legislation concerning rights. The secretariat treats this submission as a criminal penalty proposal outside the permitted citizen route. Its opponents see the effect of those penalties on freedom as the reason it belongs within that route.

Objections to the ruling also challenge its references to constitutional Sections 64 and 68, concerning constitutional policy and justice administration. The argument against the decision is that those provisions do not directly answer whether citizens may initiate this particular bill.

Submitting a bill and passing a law are different steps

The reasoning challenged by opponents includes the proposition that setting criminal punishment is a direct power of the state. The response is that citizens proposing a bill would still leave parliament responsible for deciding whether it becomes law.

A citizen initiative gives members of the public a way to put a proposal into the legislative process. The draft must then undergo parliamentary consideration, including consideration by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The signatures themselves leave the existing Criminal Code in force.

This distinction explains why campaigners consider the initial screening decision so consequential. Their immediate objective is to obtain access to legislative debate, where elected representatives can examine, change or reject the proposal.

People's Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said his party would submit a written objection to the use of authority to block the citizen proposal. He questioned why it was being treated differently from other public initiatives that had reached parliamentary consideration.

The challenge also cites bills considered across the 25th to 27th Houses of Representatives that created offences, altered criminal penalties or repealed laws carrying criminal punishment. Opponents of the ruling argue that those earlier decisions allowed citizens to initiate legislation under Chapters III and V.

Rewriting the bill offers one route back

Sirote said the secretariat remained willing to advise the organisers or help draft a new submission. He described the matter as still being at the proposal stage and said a revised bill could be presented.

That invitation addresses the secretariat's concerns about the text's title, principle and amendment format. A further submission would also face the substantive question of whether its subject falls within the constitutional scope for citizen initiatives.

Campaigners are pursuing reconsideration because they disagree with that interpretation of their rights. Their planned appeal to the House speaker would ask parliament to revisit the barrier rather than simply replace the existing draft.

Sirote said parliament was ready to hear the organisers and suggested that representatives could meet the legislative proposal unit. His November 9 remarks came before the campaign's planned visit the following day.

A court challenge would enter uncertain territory

Piyabutr proposed another possible route: asking the Administrative Court to review the decision. His argument is that a ruling affecting the right to submit legislation resembles an administrative order, such as an official decision granting or refusing permission.

He acknowledged a legal difficulty. Decisions made within the legislative sphere are generally treated as final unless a law provides a special means of challenge. His proposal asks a court to focus instead on the substance of the decision and its effect on individual rights.

The court route is untested in the circumstances he described. Piyabutr said there was no established legal precedent for his argument, leaving the court's willingness to hear such a challenge unresolved.

He recalled a similar dispute in 2011, when he participated in a campaign involving the Nitirat group and the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112. A proposed amendment to Section 112 was excluded from the citizen initiative process on the ground that it did not concern Chapter III.

That campaign did not bring an Administrative Court case, he said. His current suggestion would therefore require the organisers to pursue a legal avenue that the earlier campaign left unexplored.

Twenty MPs could submit the proposal

Piyabutr's other proposed route is through at least 20 members of the House of Representatives. An MP submission would move the proposal through a different constitutional channel from the citizen initiative now in dispute.

Sasinan has called for parliamentary debate through that route. Natthaphong's announced written objection concerns the treatment of the public submission; the statements described here give no filing date for a bill sponsored by 20 MPs.

Piyabutr also addressed the Constitutional Court's position on Section 112. In his interpretation, its ruling still leaves room for proposals reducing penalties or separating the offences of insult, defamation and threats. That is his legal assessment of the ruling.

He argued that MPs could act to support the right of citizens to propose legislation while considering the political situation. His two suggested approaches place responsibility in different hands: judges would decide whether a court challenge could proceed, while MPs would decide whether to sponsor a bill.

The dates behind the dispute

The current confrontation connects a criminal penalty measure from 1976 with a parliamentary access dispute unfolding in November 2026. An earlier campaign in 2011 provides the comparison cited by Piyabutr.

• October 6, 1976: The events associated with the coup preceded Order No. 41, which increased criminal penalties, including those under Section 112.
• 2011: Piyabutr participated in a campaign to amend Section 112 that encountered a similar restriction on citizen proposals.
• November 8, 2026: Piyabutr outlined his objections and proposed possible court and MP submission routes.
• November 9, 2026: Sirote explained the secretariat's position and identified Second Deputy Speaker Lertsak as the decision maker.
• November 10, 2026: Campaign organisers planned to go to parliament to contest the ruling.

The next scheduled step was the campaign's parliamentary visit. The central choice was whether reconsideration, a rewritten submission or sponsorship by MPs could bring the proposed penalty changes into legislative debate.

Key Points

• A campaign supported by 59,503 signatories is challenging a ruling preventing its bill from advancing through the citizen initiative process.
• The proposal concerns penalties in 12 Criminal Code sections and repeal of Order No. 41.
• Piyabutr says its Section 112 change would restore a maximum prison sentence of three years, replacing the current range of three to 15 years.
• The parliamentary secretariat cites constitutional scope and drafting problems, while offering help with a new submission.
• Sirote says Second Deputy Speaker Lertsak, acting under delegated authority, made the decision.
• Campaigners seek reconsideration; other suggested routes include an untested court challenge and submission by at least 20 MPs.