The administration of the clergy and the case of revocation of administrative orders

Abstract

              The dispute case of appointment and removal of monks to hold positions in the administration of the Sangha was according to the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 and the Sangha Sangha Rules, as a religious organization. It is not public, who works in an administrative agency. Therefore, it is not considered an administrative case in which the Administrative Court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542. But it's the use of legal power with the clergy as the Ecclesiastical Provincial Governor, performance within authority and duty to govern the Sangha according to Section 45 of the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505, which requires monks who have been appointed to the positions of the Sangha and Vaiya Wachakorn to be officials under the Criminal Code. The Buddhist ecclesiastical official monk are therefore officials according to the law. In addition, the Sangha Sangha Rules (No. 24), B.E. 2541 concerning the appointment and removal of monks, Article 23, not onsidering and selection of monks who have all qualifications according to number 6 and number 22.

              Based on the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court ruling on the dispute in such case, it is not an exercise of administrative power as a government official who works in an administrative agency. Therefore, it is not considered an administrative case in which the Administrative Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate. In which such cases fall within the scope of Section 45 of the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505. The accused of both cases is required to be an official under the Criminal Code. It is seen that it is a determination to have the powers and duties under the criminal law.  It does not make the accused a state official under the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542.