DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR SYSTEM IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

This research article aimed to: 1. examine the legal system, structure, and role of the judge-rapporteur in Administrative Court proceedings; 2. analyze the problems, obstacles, and limitations affecting the judge-rapporteur’s performance of duties within the electronic Administrative Court system; and 3. propose approaches to developing the judge-rapporteur and electronic Administrative Court systems to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability. This qualitative study examined documents on law, court procedure, and technology, conducted in-depth interviews with 25 key informants from six groups, and held a focus group discussion with nine experts. All participants were purposively selected based on their knowledge and experience in law, court operations, technology, or Buddhism. The research instruments comprised semi-structured interview guides and focus group discussion guides. The data were analyzed using content analysis, interpretation, categorization, and comparison, and verified through triangulation.

The findings revealed that 1. Thailand’s Administrative Courts operate within a civil law system and follow an inquisitorial procedure. Under Section 58 of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999), the judge-rapporteur is a judge who is not a member of the adjudicating panel, independently reviews case files, and submits opinions to provide intellectual checks and balances, without voting rights in deciding cases. 2. Problems included heavy workloads and duplicated paperwork; obstacles involved incomplete data integration and inadequate support systems; limitations concerned review time, access rights, and confidentiality. Requests for information through the competent authorities may prolong waiting times; and 3. Development should involve parallel work using shared data while maintaining separate powers and duties, establishing standards for statements of opinion, allocating workloads, controlling access, maintaining data security and audit trails, and publishing statements of opinion in accordance with the law. The Buddhist principle of the Four Biases supplements self-assessment within the framework of law and judicial ethics, while artificial intelligence remains subject to verification by judges. Implementation requires a legal basis and evaluation in practice.