Abstract

                      This research paper aims to study Thai court ruling and Monastic Discipline ruling procedures with two objectives which are Thai court ruling decision and Monastic Discipline ruling decision processes.  This is an analytical work through the process of documentary research by way of research study on the Thai court ruling decision and Monastic Discipline ruling decision processes for educational purposes.

     From the study, it was found that the Thai court ruling procedure is stipulated to provide justice to all general public.  Its methods and procedures are judiciously enacted in the court ruling system.  The government body designates duties and responsibilities among each court to enforce and exercise such laws independently from one another.  This practice, however, uses the system of checks and balances as a driving tool to prove the allegation for a wrongful act in the court of law and brings the offender before court to be indicted with probable cause.  International principles are commonly used for the court ruling, for instance, the principle of allegation by the government, the principle of truth, the principle of hearing from all parties concerned, the principle of statements, the principle of the right witnesses, the principle of disclosure, the principle of independency as well as the principle of the benefit of a doubt.  As for the virtue and the morality of those who work with the court, it is explicitly stipulated in writing.  If ones behave rightfully under the court of law, regardless what the outcome might be, the law shall indisputably provide full protection to those judicial officials accordingly.

                 The Theravada Sangha’s ruling system enforces solely upon the Sangha community for the sake of peace and harmony as well as the attainment of wisdom under the Threefold Training (Morality, Concentration and Wisdom) practice.  The implementation of such law prevents aversion within the community for those who commit the offense to be considered as unvirtuous and immoral.  The Code of Monastic Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka) enforces the Sangha council committee to have duties and exclusive authority to decide on a case for an offense committed by a Buddhist monk.  The number of Buddhist monks in each Sangha community may be more or less depending on the type of each allegation which are: legal questions concerning disputes, legal questions concerning accusations, legal questions concerning offences and legal questions concerning obligations.  The Monastic Disciplinary ruling system constitutes certain components in its decision making which are 1) the Sangha assembly; 2) the Vinaya or the Monastic Discipline; and 3) the intention of the wrongdoer.  Until today, the Kingdom of Sangha Supreme Council has enacted the Sangha Act to enforce the suppression measures.  Although the procedure of the Sangha Community’s ruling may support the Code of Monastic Discipline to enforce the rules effectively, the Sangha Supreme Council’s procedure and the suppression measures have yet differentiated with the Monastic Disciplinary ruling procedure.  For instance, the total number of Buddhist monks in the preliminary hearing under the Kingdom of Sangha Supreme Council does not add up to the number required under the Code of Monastic Discipline.  According to the Sangha’s denotation, the Buddhist monk who sits on the case shall have the power and authority in the Sangha’s community.  The punishment approach to invalidate the monkhood or force to leave the Order is appended to the final ruling procedure.  Should one not abide by, the offender will have to face with criminal charges thereafter.

     From analysis of the two judicial ruling procedures, the researcher found that both Thai court ruling procedure and the Monastic Discipline ruling procedure conform to one another systematically and methodically.  The only difference is the suppression measures.  Although the Sangha Supreme Council of Thailand is trying to enhance the ruling procedure to become more effective, the ruling on the disciplinary case of dispute, however, could be contradictory to the Code of Monastic Discipline.

Download