The enhancing of efficiency and effectiveness on the bill’s consideration of the House of Representatives

The objective of this research is to study the issues and propose approaches to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness in the consideration of draft bills by the House of Representatives, particularly those proposed by Members of Parliament (MPs) and eligible voters. The scope of the research focuses on the consideration of draft laws during the 25^th House of Representatives session. The study found that during the 25^th session, most of the laws that passed through the House of Representatives were draft bills proposed by the Cabinet. Draft bills proposed by MPs or eligible voters often face obstacles from the drafting stage. Cabinet-proposed bills have a clear drafting process and are supported by the Office of the Council of State, which is responsible for drafting and legal review. In contrast, draft bills proposed by MPs and citizens often lack a clear drafting structure. Although the Secretariat of the House of Representatives can assist in this process, its staff may face limitations in expressing opinions on the necessity of such laws. In the first stage of the legislative process, draft bills proposed by MPs or citizens are often interpreted as money bills. This interpretation necessitates certification from the Prime Minister. However, there are no legal or constitutional provisions specifying a timeframe for the Prime Minister's review. As a result, some bills may wait for certification for nearly a year. Furthermore, when the Prime Minister refuses to certify a bill, reasons are typically not provided, which raises concerns among the bill’s proponents. During the legislative consideration process, when multiple draft bills are proposed simultaneously, the Cabinet's version is usually selected as the principal bill for consideration. If the Cabinet’s draft differs from that proposed by the public or MPs, it raises concerns that the final version may deviate significantly from the original intentions of the public’s version especially when the government’s stance on the issue is contrary to the core concepts of the draft law. The study recommends that the process of drafting bills should comply with Article 77 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, particularly in terms of assessing the necessity of the law and conducting public consultations before drafting. This would allow MPs and citizens especially those initiating draft bills to engage in dialogue and coordinate efforts toward laws with shared objectives. Most importantly, a proper assessment of legal necessity should ensure that bills proposed by MPs or citizens are comprehensive and do not conflict with existing laws. In the legislative review stage, while it may be unavoidable to use the Cabinet’s draft as the principal version, public participation should be strengthened. Strict enforcement of Article 77 of the Constitution and the Act on Principles for Drafting Laws and Assessing Legislative Effectiveness B.E. 2562 (2019) would ensure meaningful public involvement. Moreover, clear procedural guidelines should be provided to citizen commissioners participating in the review process. Crucially, the legislative review process should adopt an integrated perspective to produce laws that align with the original intent, regardless of the proposing party. As for the Prime Minister’s certification of money bills, the study suggests setting a specific time frame for certification. If the Prime Minister refuses to certify, reasons should be provided to maintain transparency.