LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE ADJUDICATORY PANEL IN FACT FINDING IN CASES WHERE BUDDHIST MONKS ARE ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE DHAMMA AND THE VINAYA

Abstract

          Although the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962) and the regulations issued thereunder by the Supreme Sangha Council confer broad authority upon the adjudicatory panel to ascertain facts in ecclesiastical proceedings, this research identifies three significant structural limitations. These include: (1) the absence of statutory power to compel persons outside the religious organization to appear, testify, or produce documentary or other evidentiary materials; (2) the lack of authority to require state agencies or public officials to undertake actions in support of adjudicative proceedings; and (3) the absence of specialized institutional mechanisms or qualified personnel to assist in the systematic collection and evaluation of evidence. Such limitations materially affect both the efficiency and the fairness of ecclesiastical adjudication. A comparative legal analysis demonstrates that fact-finding mechanisms employed by religious institutions in foreign jurisdictions—such as Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and the Roman Catholic Church—predominantly adopt inquisitorial models. Under such systems, adjudicators or ecclesiastical judges assume an active role in examining witnesses and gathering evidence, reflecting a normative commitment to the discovery of substantive truth. Historical examination of the Thai legal context further reveals that prior legislation afforded the Sangha broader coercive authority and institutional support from state agencies. By contrast, contemporary legislation has substantially curtailed such powers. Accordingly, this study advances policy-oriented legal recommendations aimed at amending the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962). It proposes that members of the adjudicatory panel be accorded the legal status of “competent officials in the administration of justice” within the meaning of the Penal Code, thereby enabling them to summon documents, evidence, and witnesses, and to direct state agencies or investigative officers to provide necessary assistance. Furthermore, it recommends the establishment of a formal system of adjudicatory assistants to enhance the effectiveness of evidentiary collection. Such reforms would strengthen the credibility, procedural fairness, and institutional legitimacy of ecclesiastical adjudication, while preserving public confidence in Buddhism within Thai society.