BUDDHIST INTEGRATED SANGHA COURT: THE POSSIBILITY OF DRAFTING LEGISLATION ON ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND PROCEDURES FOR CASES CONCERNING THE SANGHA TO FOSTER BUDDHIST INNOVATION IN THAILAND

Abstract

Background and Objective: The system for managing violations of the Buddhist monastic discipline in Thailand lacked a standardized adjudicative mechanism, inconsistently enforced the monastic discipline, and did not provide a formal appeals process or review of decisions. These conditions sparked debates over fairness and accountability in ecclesiastical proceedings. This research aimed to assess the feasibility of drafting legislation establishing a Sangha Court and procedures for adjudicating monastic cases to foster Buddhist innovation in Thailand.

Methodology: The study employed a mixed-methods research approach. It examined and analyzed legal documents, Buddhist texts, and related studies from both domestic and international sources. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 purposively selected key informants representing the judiciary, public prosecutors, police officers, lawyers, and government agencies responsible for Sangha affairs. Focus group discussions were also conducted with 20 experts from various sectors in Southern Thailand. The data were analyzed through content analysis and conceptual comparison with relevant legal frameworks and theories. The researcher verified the data's trustworthiness through triangulation, member checking, and expert validation to confirm the consistency, accuracy, and reliability of the research findings.

Main Results: The findings revealed that establishing a Sangha Court was feasible across four significant dimensions. First, from a legal-principle perspective, it could exist within the framework of the rule of law and substantive equality, provided that its jurisdiction was limited to cases concerning monastic discipline. Second, from a structural perspective, it could be designed as a specialized adjudicative body composed of both experts in Buddhist monastic discipline and legal experts. Third, from a procedural perspective, it required a specific procedural law integrating the principles of due process, an inquisitorial system, and appellate mechanisms. Fourth, from an institutional perspective, the establishment of a Sangha Court reflected an approach to developing governance within the Sangha under the framework of the modern state. The findings also generated a new body of knowledge, namely the "Buddhist Integrated Sangha Court Model," which differed from previous studies by proposing not only the establishment of a Sangha Court but also an institutional framework integrating Buddhist doctrinal principles with the rule of law and modern judicial processes.

Involvement to Buddhadhamma: The establishment of a Sangha Court was consistent with the principles of the Buddhist monastic discipline, which emphasizes careful consideration of offenses, inquiry, hearing explanations, and deliberation by the Sangha assembly. These principles reflected Buddhist governance aimed at preserving the purity of the monastic order and rehabilitating offenders rather than imposing retributive punishment. The integration of modern legal principles, therefore, represented a form of Buddhist innovation, translating the principles of monastic discipline into a framework that functioned appropriately within the context of a modern state.

Conclusions: The Buddhist Integrated Sangha Court Model constituted an institutional framework capable of linking the principles of Buddhist monastic discipline with the rule of law through a systematic adjudicative mechanism. Essential conditions included the establishment of clearly defined jurisdictional boundaries, the design of procedures consistent with the principles of fairness, and the maintenance of a balance between the autonomy of the Sangha and accountability under the principles of good governance.