Problems in Regulating Fiscal Discipline (State Fiscal and Financial Discipline) under the Organic Act on State Audit B.E. 2561 (2018) : The Ambiguity of the Legal Basis for Evaluating Violations of Budgetary and Financial Discipline

Abstract

     The Organic Act on State Audit B.E. 2561 (2018) plays a pivotal role in empowering the State Audit Commission to uphold fiscal discipline, especially in regulating the conduct of government officials to ensure compliance with laws related to budgetary and financial discipline as stipulated by legislation. This fundamental principle is clearly articulated in Section 97 of the aforementioned law, which states that in instances where any government official, obligated to adhere to law on state fiscal and financial discipline, deliberately violates such law, the Auditor-General is required to present the case to the Commission for the imposition of administrative penalties on the implicated official. However, concerns have been raised regarding the criteria employed by the State Audit Commission to evaluate violations of budgetary and financial discipline. The ambiguity arises from the term “law on state fiscal and financial discipline,” particularly when considered in conjunction with the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act B.E. 2561 (2018), which consistently uses the phrase “State Fiscal and Financial Discipline” both as the name of the entire law and as the name of a chapter within the law. Despite this, the two parts mentioned above exhibit different characteristics of “fiscal discipline.” The discrepancy in terminology introduces uncertainty in the application of Section 97 of the Organic Act on State Audit B.E. 2561 (2018). To address this issue, this article seeks to examine the meaning of the term “law on state fiscal and financial discipline” as it appears in the aforementioned provisions. The aim is to ensure that the enforcement of the law aligns with the principles of public law.