LEGAL LIMITATIONS AND JURISDICTIONAL SCOPE OF ESTATE MANAGEMENT FOR BUDDHIST MONKS IN THAI SOCIETY

Abstract

This academic article examines the legal limitations and jurisdictional scope governing the estate management of Buddhist monks within Thai society, focusing on the structural conflict between civil law, which affirms individual property rights, and Buddhist monastic discipline, which emphasizes renunciation and detachment from material possessions. Although Buddhist monks are legally recognized as legal personhood under Section 15 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, they are subject to specific statutory restrictions concerning inheritance rights. Section 1622 provides that monks are not entitled to claim inheritance as legal heirs while maintaining monastic status; however, they may receive property as beneficiaries under a will without the requirement of disrobing (La-suek). The legal distinction between assets acquired prior to ordination and those obtained during ordination carries significant implications for estate management. Under Section 1623, assets acquired during ordination devolve to the temple unless lawfully disposed of or transferred by will, whereas assets acquired before ordination, pursuant to Section 1624, remain inheritable by legal heirs. This legal framework reveals a normative tension between the Nissaggiya Pācittiya rules, which prohibit the accumulation and retention of property, and the civil law regime protecting ownership and testamentary freedom, thereby generating moral, social, and jurisdictional challenges in practice. While the law permits monks to execute wills and transfer assets to relatives, temples, or third parties, such actions may conflict with the ethical foundations of monastic discipline. Key enforcement challenges include determining whether assets were acquired before or during ordination, resolving disputes between temples and legal heirs in cases of intestacy, and the commingling of personal and temple assets, particularly when abbots exercise both spiritual and administrative authority. The article therefore proposes strengthening transparent systems for asset documentation and registration, providing legal counsel to monks, and pursuing a sustainable balance between protecting legal rights and preserving religious integrity.