THE PLOBLEM AND GUIDELINE FOR SOLVE PROCESS OFFICIALS FOR LITIGATION THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ALLEGED CRIMINAL FROM PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTY FOR FAIRNESS

Abstract

Abstract

Thailand has long been faced with a major problem of corruption in which it has not been able to solve. The root cause of this problem can be traced back to the abuse of power by government officials in their duties. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand of 1997 subsequently imposed provisions to oversee, examine and limit the use of power by government officials, including provisions to institute independent national organisations, tasked with the examination of abuse of power, such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the Office of the Ombudsman. The law particularly imposes the duty to investigate abuse of power by government officials in their official duties, capacity or in violation of legitimacy, on the NACC and further stipulates the procedural rules which differ from those in the Criminal Procedure Code. Such differences can be seen at different stages of the procedure, from the initiation of cases to rules of evidence, rules of admissibility of evidence, prosecutorial discretion and its check and balance. Consequently, criminal proceedings arising from the investigation of government officials conducted by different organisations will differ due to the differences in procedures, regulations, directives used in the investigation, as well as the qualifications of the officials responsible for the case file. Therefore, it can be asked whether the variations of criminal proceedings against the accused government official apply a uniform standard and whether procedural fairness for the accused is established. This research found that different organisations conducting proceedings against the accused government officials, thus using different rules on evidence and proceedings, have resulted in different procedural standards, especially with respect to admissibility standards: the Criminal Procedure Code the NACC and the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) the law for litigation and the proceedings it can be observed that different standards apply despite arising from the same wrongful act and conducted by the state irrespective of the organisation responsible for the investigation, affecting the accuser, the accused and the state. The inquiry process in a criminal proceeding is important because it is the stage in which evidence is compiled to create a case file subsequently used to make prosecutorial decisions and used as evidence during trials. As such, the inquiry process must assure the accused that the process is done in accordance with fairness.

This article is part of the author’s research on the improvement of the inquiry process to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings against government officials accused of abuse of power in their duties for the Doctor of Philosophy Programme in Justice Administration, Faculty of Law at Thammasat University.