The Neutrality of Administrative Adjudicators: A Case Study on the 'Other Qualifications' in Ministerial Regulations Issued Pursuant to Section 13(6) of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539, and Its Enforcement

Abstract

Background and Aims: Administrative law refers to forms as procedures that outline numerous rules and guidelines that must be followed precisely when performing administrative operations. Government employees operating under the tenets of neutrality and with the authority vested in them by law must conduct the operation. This research article aims to The Neutrality of Administrative Adjudicators: A Case Study on the 'Other Qualifications' in Ministerial Regulations Issued Pursuant to Section 13(6)

Methodology: This paper has analyzed the Ministerial Regulations Issued Pursuant to Section 13(6) of the Administrative Procedure Act, B.E.2539, and Its Enforcement of the principle of neutrality in administrative adjudication stipulates that the qualifications of parties involved must not exhibit prohibited characteristics as per Section 13 of the Administrative Procedure Act of B.E. 2539 (1996). Subsequent to this, ministerial regulations were enacted in accordance with Section 13(6).

Results: These regulations aim to govern administrative adjudications to prevent biases related to personal dispositions or external influences. However, the legal language utilizing terms like "is" or "has been," without specifying a definite timeframe, could potentially bind adjudicators to a perpetual state of conflict of interest, should they have had any past relationship with the parties involved, in the capacities mentioned. Proving such a status becomes challenging for the parties subject to administrative review, complicating the process of presenting evidence to argue against the adjudicator’s impartiality under Section 14, paragraph 1. Moreover, these ministerial regulations enforce the law on the status of parties without clear evidence in official registrations as recognized legally, complicating the objection process further. The broad drafting scope of these regulations restricts the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties, making status verification difficult. While intended to fortify against biased administrative adjudication, this approach raises concerns about increased objections to administrative reviews, potentially delaying proceedings without just cause.

Conclusion: Although the purpose of these regulations is to prevent biases, they unintentionally lead to ambiguity that could encourage conflicts of interest and impede the process of impartial adjudication. Their wide reach jeopardizes unwarranted delays in administrative reviews by limiting constitutional rights and making the verification process more difficult.