LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF PHUTTHAMONTHON LAND: INTEGRATING DONOR’S INTENT, LEGAL PRINCIPLES, AND RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY

Abstract

This academic article aims to analyze the legal status of the Phutthamonthon land, a significant religious site in Thailand. The origin of the land stems from the intention of laypeople who donated it as an offering to the Buddha and for the establishment of a national center for the dissemination of Buddhism on the occasion of the 25th Buddhist Century. However, a legal dispute later emerged when the Treasury Department attempted to register the land as state property (ratchapatsadu) under Sections 8 and 17 of the State Property Act B.E. 2562 (2019), on the grounds that the land was acquired using the national budget. In contrast, the National Office of Buddhism and the Sangha Supreme Council argued that the land should be classified as central ecclesiastical property in accordance with Section 40 of the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962), which assigns custodianship to the National Office of Buddhism on behalf of the religion This article employs documentary research to examine relevant domestic legal principles, including Section 171 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which emphasizes the true intention of the person expressing legal intent, and compares them with international legal doctrines concerning the autonomy of religious organizations. An example is the principle of Religious Autonomy as established in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Jones, which held that the state should refrain from intervening in or claiming direct ownership over religious property. The study concludes that the state should uphold the original intent of the donors and the rule of law, and refrain from claiming ownership of Phutthamonthon land. Instead, the state should play a supportive and protective role. The article recommends legislative amendments, the establishment of a central ecclesiastical property management committee, and the development of a systematic registration of religious properties to ensure legal and ethical consistency with both secular legal frameworks and Buddhist principles.