Analysis of Fiscal Discipline Case in the Administrative Court: Supreme Administrative Court Order No. A. 22/2018

Abstract

In a broad context, "fiscal discipline" encompasses the comprehensive fiscal framework utilized to regulate and oversee various fiscal instruments, including fiscal policy formulation, administration, management of public revenue, expenditure, public debt, state assets, treasury operations, and other budgetary obligations aimed at realizing the fiscal objectives of the state, notably the maintenance of economic stability. This framework may manifest in either a political economy or legal form. The legal aspect pertains to the fiscal discipline framework mandated by law or fiscal rules endowed with legal authority. State fiscal activities, encompassing revenue collection, expenditure, and debt creation, must adhere to the parameters delineated by legal statutes. Such legal authority may derive from constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, and subsidiary laws of the executive branch. Consequently, fiscal discipline, as a legal construct, is subject to formal enforcement mechanisms. Instances of deviation from the prescribed fiscal framework by the state or government officials incur legal consequences, ranging from Constitutional Court rulings deeming proposed laws unconstitutional to judicial judgments declaring administrative actions unlawful. Furthermore, independent constitutional bodies like the National Audit Commission may levy administrative fines on officials contravening the fiscal and budgetary discipline mandated by law. Presently, several cases concerning fiscal discipline are under deliberation in the Administrative Court, serving as subjects for examining the essence and enforcement of fiscal discipline. Notably, Supreme Administrative Court Order No. 22/2018 exemplifies the manifestation of fiscal discipline within the Thai legal system and elucidates the interplay between administrative law and Thai fiscal legislation.