มาตรการทางกฎหมายการเป็นเจ้าพนักงานของเจ้าอาวาส ตามพระราชบัญญัติคณะสงฆ์ พ.ศ. 2505 กับเจ้าพนักงานตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา

        This research paper is initiated by a query to the abbots’ official on which abbots’ action is considered an offense according to the criminal code. Initially, the method of interpretation was used to compare with Supreme Court judgments on a case-by-case basis; subsequently, there was a definition of the term "official" according to Section 1(16) of the criminal code stating: 1) a person designated by law as an official; or 2) a person appointed to undertake official duties on a regular or from time to time basis, and whether or not remunerated. However, the problem of which abbot is deemed an official remains unresolved, or an abbot is appointed to carry out official tasks but it is unclear whether he does so as an official or not, prompting this study. The study applies a documentary research study by studying the Tipitaka, Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560, criminal code, the Sangha Act B.E. 2505, judgments of the Supreme Court, books, academic documents, theses, and related research works. The objectives of the study are as follows: 1) to study what it means to be an official according to the criminal code, as well as the characteristics of an abbots’ official; 2) to study problems and obstacles found in carrying out the abbots’ responsibilities in accordance with the official's power and duty under the Sangha Act B.E. 2505; and 3) to analyze and compare the performance of the abbots’ official duties in accordance with the criminal code.

          From the study, it has been found that although the abbots receive monthly allowance (niccabhatta), still they are not an official. Furthermore, while the abbots are the temple's legal representative, they have limited duties under Section 37 of the Sangha Act B.E. 2505. Therefore, abbots who undertake their duties with the intention of violating the aforementioned section are regarded guilty as officials. The study also found that according to the Sangha Act B.E. 2505, abbots are responsible for the temple's upkeep and management of its affairs and properties. Including, governing, and monitoring individuals who reside within the temple to practice according to Buddhist teachings, monastic discipline, and the law, rules, and orders of the Sangha Supreme Council. Abbots are also in charge of teaching Buddhist teachings and monastic discipline to monks and laypeople, as well as promoting their involvement in wholesome actions inside the temple. If abbots fail to function as required  by the Act, they are regarded to have committed an offense as officials and will be penalized in accordance with the criminal code.

          As a result, it is deemed appropriate to revise the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 to make it explicit which actions under the abbots' duties are offenses under the criminal code; for example, modifying Section 37 to make it more concise and adding judicial obligations for monks to accept prosecutions and adjudicate cases of offenders who violate monastic discipline.The punishment (niggahakamma) according to the rule of the Sangha Supreme Council B.E. 2521 No. 11 item 12 to implement as one of the abbots’ duties in the Sangha Act B.E. 2505, so that the abbots and ecclesiastical officials will be aware of their responsibility of protecting Buddhism. However, the definition in Section 1(16) does not adequately interpret abbots' official status because the result of the abbots' duties arises according to Buddhist scriptures. If it is to be interpreted according to the criminal code, it must be done carefully; otherwise, abbots' duty performance may be an infraction when it comes to being official without or with purpose.