1. Introduction

Autonomous Public Value Governance in Thailand refers to the legal and institutional framework through which public authorities, government agencies, municipalities, state enterprises, and technology-enabled administrative systems create, protect, and distribute public value independently, transparently, and accountably.

Public value includes more than economic growth or government revenue. It encompasses:

Protection of individual rights and human dignity.

Equal access to public services.

Environmental sustainability.

Transparency and accountability in government decisions.

Fair allocation of public resources.

Protection of public property and community interests.

Digital inclusion and responsible technological development.

Public participation in administrative decision-making.

In Thailand, this subject is not a separately codified branch of civil law. It is best understood as an interdisciplinary legal framework connecting civil law, constitutional law, administrative law, public procurement, environmental law, consumer protection, and digital governance.

The concept of autonomous governance is particularly relevant where public authorities use automated systems, artificial intelligence, digital platforms, decentralized decision-making, and performance-based public-service mechanisms.

The central legal question is:

How can Thailand permit autonomous public administration while ensuring that public value remains consistent with individual rights, civil liability, equality, and judicial accountability?

2. Legal framework governing public value in Thailand

A. Constitution of Thailand

The Constitution of 2017 provides the constitutional foundation for public value governance.

Important constitutional principles include:

Section 25 – Protection of rights and liberties: Individuals can invoke constitutional rights subject to constitutional limitations.

Section 26 – Rule of law and proportionality: Restrictions on rights must comply with constitutional requirements.

Section 27 – Equality: Public authorities must respect equality and non-discrimination.

Section 41 – Access to justice and public information: Supports the exercise of legal rights and access to public information.

Section 43 – Community rights: Recognizes community interests in natural resources, environmental protection, and cultural heritage.

Section 57 – State duties: Requires the State to protect natural resources, the environment, and cultural heritage.

Section 58 – Environmental impact assessment and participation: Provides safeguards for activities that may seriously affect communities and environmental quality.

These provisions establish that public value cannot be measured exclusively through financial efficiency. It must also account for fundamental rights, environmental protection, and community welfare.

B. Civil and Commercial Code

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code provides the private-law foundation for public value disputes.

Section 420 is particularly important when public projects, infrastructure systems, administrative negligence, or technology-enabled government services cause harm to individuals.

C. Act on Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials B.E. 2539 (1996)

This Act establishes the liability framework for wrongful acts committed by public officials in the performance of official duties.

Its central provisions include:

Section 5: The government agency is liable to the injured person for wrongful acts committed by its officials in the performance of their duties.

Section 6: Addresses wrongful acts committed outside official duties and the personal liability of the official.

Section 8: Regulates the agency's right of recourse against an official, particularly where intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence is involved.

This framework is essential to autonomous public value governance because government agencies cannot avoid responsibility simply by delegating decisions to contractors, digital platforms, or automated administrative systems.

D. Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996)

This Act regulates administrative orders, procedural fairness, participation, and the exercise of administrative discretion.

Its importance includes:

Giving affected individuals an opportunity to be heard where required.

Requiring lawful administrative procedures.

Controlling arbitrary administrative decisions.

Supporting reasoned and reviewable administrative action.

Protecting individuals against unlawful licensing and regulatory decisions.

E. Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997)

The Act supports public access to official information and transparency in public administration.

It is particularly relevant to:

Automated government decisions.

Public expenditure.

Government contracts.

Administrative databases.

Public-service performance.

Public-interest investigations.

F. Environmental and public participation legislation

Other important legislation includes:

Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act B.E. 2535 (1992).

Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992).

Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017).

Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019).

Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

Together, these laws provide a legal basis for balancing efficiency, environmental sustainability, privacy, consumer welfare, and accountability.

3. Meaning and dimensions of autonomous public value governance

3.1 Public-interest decision-making

Government decisions should promote collective welfare rather than merely the interests of individual agencies or private contractors.

For example, a municipality introducing an AI-based waste-management system should evaluate:

Reduction in waste-management costs.

Public health benefits.

Environmental protection.

Equal service coverage.

Privacy protection.

Accessibility for disadvantaged communities.

A system that reduces expenditure but excludes remote communities may fail the broader public-value standard.

3.2 Autonomous administrative decision-making

Autonomous governance involves public authorities exercising independent administrative judgment.

However, autonomy does not mean freedom from legal restrictions.

Administrative autonomy must remain subject to:

Statutory authority.

Constitutional rights.

Judicial review.

Procedural fairness.

Proportionality.

Public accountability.

3.3 Digital public value

Thailand's digital-government development creates new civil-law challenges.

Examples include:

Automated eligibility decisions for public benefits.

AI-supported municipal services.

Digital identity verification.

Algorithmic allocation of public resources.

Smart transportation systems.

Automated environmental monitoring.

Where an automated system produces an unlawful decision or causes injury, the responsible public institution must remain legally accountable.

3.4 Community-centred public value

Public value must include the legitimate interests of local communities.

This is particularly important in:

Infrastructure development.

Mining and industrial licensing.

Water-resource management.

Tourism development.

Forest conservation.

Cultural heritage protection.

Communities should not be treated merely as passive recipients of government policies.

3.5 Economic and social value

Autonomous governance should support sustainable economic development while protecting social interests.

A government project should therefore be assessed through its effects on employment, livelihoods, market competition, affordability, public infrastructure, and distributional fairness.

4. Important Thai judicial decisions and case laws

The following decisions provide relevant judicial principles for understanding public value governance. Some are directly concerned with administrative accountability, while others concern environmental protection, participation, and public-interest remedies. They should not be understood as establishing a single judicial doctrine called autonomous public value governance.

Case 1. Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate Environmental Case (2009)

Landmark environmental governance decision

Court: Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand.

Subject: Industrial development, environmental protection, and public interest.

Facts:

The dispute concerned industrial projects in the Map Ta Phut area of Rayong Province. Local communities raised concerns about pollution, environmental risks, and inadequate compliance with environmental assessment requirements.

The dispute involved the relationship between industrial expansion and the constitutional protection of community health and environmental interests.

Legal issues:

Whether industrial projects could proceed without satisfying constitutional environmental safeguards.

Whether environmental impact assessment requirements were properly fulfilled.

Whether public health and environmental interests should take priority over unrestricted industrial development.

Judicial significance:

The Court ordered suspension of affected projects pending compliance with applicable constitutional and environmental requirements.

Importance for public value governance:

Economic development must comply with environmental safeguards.

Public health is an essential component of public value.

Administrative licensing must follow constitutional procedures.

Industrial investment cannot automatically override community interests.

Case 2. Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. A.86/2552 (2009)

Subject: Mining licences, environmental impact, and public participation.

Facts:

Villagers challenged a mining licence issued by the Industry Minister. They alleged dust and noise pollution, damage to environmentally and historically significant areas, and deficiencies in public participation.

Legal issues:

Whether the mining licence was unlawful.

Whether the environmental assessment and approval process complied with applicable legislation.

Whether the objections raised by affected communities justified judicial intervention.

Decision:

The Court dismissed the challenge after finding that the relevant environmental assessment and licensing process had complied with the applicable legal requirements. It also considered the timing and substance of the objections.

Importance for public value governance:

This decision illustrates that public-interest governance requires both environmental protection and lawful administrative decision-making. Community objections must be considered within the applicable procedural and evidentiary framework.

Case 3. Supreme Administrative Court Order No. 630/2551 (2008) – Sakom Coastal Jetty Dispute

Subject: Coastal development, fishing livelihoods, and public-interest remedies.

Facts:

Fishermen operating around the Sakom coastal area challenged the approval and construction of jetties near the mouth of Sakom Canal.

They argued that the construction caused environmental damage and harmed fishing activities and their economic interests.

Legal issues:

Whether the fishermen had standing to challenge the administrative action.

Whether the public authorities could be liable for wrongful acts.

Whether environmental restoration claims were subject to the same limitation rules as individual compensation claims.

Decision:

The Supreme Administrative Court accepted the fishermen's cause of action concerning alleged wrongful administrative conduct.

It distinguished individual claims for income-related damages from claims seeking restoration of coastal resources in the public interest. It also addressed the limitation period and the absence of authority for the plaintiffs to claim compensation on behalf of the government department.

Importance for public value governance:

Livelihoods are part of public value.

Environmental restoration is distinct from private financial compensation.

Public-interest litigation can protect shared resources.

Administrative agencies may face liability for unlawful exercises of public power.

Case 4. Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. A.472/2557 (2014) – Water Resources Management Master Plan

Subject: Water governance and public consultation.

Facts:

Citizens challenged the approval of the national Water Resources Management Master Plan by the Prime Minister and relevant government committees.

They argued that the approval process lacked sufficient public consultation.

Legal issues:

Whether the master plan itself required public consultation.

Whether the government had complied with constitutional participation requirements.

Whether consultation undertaken through private contractors could be accepted as part of the administrative process.

Decision:

The Court dismissed the challenge. It reasoned that the plan, in its existing form, did not contain sufficiently specific projects and activities to determine their actual environmental and community impacts.

However, individual projects would need to comply with the applicable constitutional and environmental procedures when sufficiently developed.

Importance for public value governance:

Public participation must be assessed in relation to the nature and specificity of government decisions.

Delegating consultation work to private contractors does not eliminate government supervision.

Strategic planning and project-level decision-making may have different procedural requirements.

Case 5. Supreme Administrative Court Decision A.E.1/2560 – Right to Be Heard in the Issuance of a Factory Licence

Important procedural fairness decision

Subject: Administrative licensing and community rights.

Facts:

The dispute concerned the licensing of a tapioca starch factory that could cause wastewater pollution and air pollution from dust and industrial boilers.

The authorities had not properly informed affected residents about the environmental problems or conducted the required public hearing.

Legal issues:

Whether affected residents were entitled to be heard.

Whether the licensing authority had complied with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Whether the failure to conduct the hearing affected the legality of the factory licence.

Decision:

The Administrative Court held that the licensing procedure was unlawful because the required public hearing had not been properly conducted.

The Court emphasized that the hearing was a material procedural requirement, not a merely optional administrative exercise.

Importance for public value governance:

Communities must receive meaningful opportunities to participate.

Administrative efficiency cannot replace procedural fairness.

Public authorities must consider environmental and health consequences.

Licences affecting public welfare must comply with legally prescribed procedures.

Case 6. Supreme Administrative Court Decision A.587/2562 – Mahidol University / Siriraj Hospital Medical Records Dispute

Subject: Access to information, institutional negligence, and civil liability.

Facts:

A patient requested access to medical records held by Siriraj Hospital.

The hospital was unable to provide the records because they had been lost, despite its responsibility to maintain and recover the relevant documents.

Legal issues:

Whether medical records constituted official information.

Whether the hospital had a duty to provide the requested information.

Whether failure to maintain and recover the records constituted a wrongful act.

Whether the responsible government institution was liable for compensation.

Decision:

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the hospital had neglected its legal duties and violated the patient's right to obtain information.

It held that the responsible administrative institution was liable under Section 5 of the Act on Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials B.E. 2539 (1996).

Importance for public value governance:

Public institutions have duties to maintain reliable information systems.

Access to information is an important public value.

Institutional negligence can result in civil liability.

Digital transformation requires proper records management and accountability.

Case 7. Klity Creek Lead Contamination Litigation

Environmental restoration and corporate accountability

Court: Thai Supreme Court and Administrative Court proceedings.

Subject: Industrial pollution, community health, compensation, and environmental restoration.

Facts:

The Klity Creek community in Kanchanaburi suffered from lead contamination associated with mining operations. Pollution affected the water, food sources, health, and traditional livelihoods of local residents.

Villagers pursued litigation seeking compensation and remediation of the contaminated environment.

Legal issues:

Whether industrial pollution created civil liability.

Whether affected residents could claim compensation.

Whether environmental restoration could be ordered.

Whether the responsible authorities had adequately discharged their environmental duties.

Judicial significance:

The litigation resulted in compensation for affected villagers and judicially supported environmental restoration measures.

Importance for public value governance:

Environmental health is a collective public asset.

Public authorities must respond to continuing environmental harm.

Compensation alone may be inadequate where ecological restoration is necessary.

Vulnerable communities must have meaningful access to legal remedies.

Case 8. Bangkok Flood Compensation Litigation (2011 Floods)

Court: Supreme Administrative Court.

Relevant decisions: Aor.Sor. 11/2565, Aor.Sor. 51/2566, Aor.Sor. 52/2566, Aor.Sor. 61/2566 and Aor.Sor. 62/2566.

Subject: Public infrastructure management and government tort liability.

Facts:

Following the severe 2011 floods, property owners brought proceedings seeking compensation for damage to their homes and other property.

The defendants included government authorities and officials involved in water management and flood-control measures.

Legal issues:

Whether the government had committed wrongful acts.

Whether flood-management decisions were unlawful or negligent.

Whether public authorities had balanced competing public and private interests.

Whether the alleged administrative conduct caused compensable property damage.

Judicial significance:

The litigation examined the relationship between administrative discretion, proportionality, causation, and civil compensation.

Importance for public value governance:

Disaster management must consider both collective protection and individual property rights.

Government discretion is not unlimited.

Public infrastructure decisions must be reasonable and proportionate.

Compensation must be assessed according to legally established liability and evidence.

Case 9. Chiang Mai PM2.5 Air Pollution Litigation

Court: Chiang Mai Administrative Court.

Subject: Air quality, environmental protection, and governmental inaction.

Facts:

The litigation concerned persistent PM2.5 pollution in northern Thailand and alleged inadequate action by public authorities to address the air pollution crisis.

Affected parties sought judicial intervention concerning the government's responsibilities.

Legal issues:

Whether public authorities had adequately discharged their environmental duties.

Whether government inaction could be challenged.

Whether public health required effective administrative intervention.

Whether environmental governance could be assessed through judicial review.

Importance for public value governance:

This litigation illustrates that public value is not simply created by positive government expenditure or new infrastructure. It also depends on preventing harm through effective regulation and enforcement.

5. Relationship between autonomous governance and civil liability

Autonomous public systems can generate legal responsibility in several ways.

5.1 Liability for automated administrative decisions

Suppose a Thai government department introduces an AI system to determine eligibility for public welfare benefits.

The system mistakenly classifies eligible citizens as ineligible.

The legal questions include:

Was the system lawfully authorized?

Was the decision based on accurate information?

Was the affected individual given an opportunity to challenge it?

Did the authority exercise reasonable supervision?

Did the error cause legally recognizable damage?

The government agency cannot necessarily escape liability by arguing that the decision was generated by software.

The Act on Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials and Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code may become relevant, depending on the nature of the act, the responsible party, and the applicable jurisdiction.

5.2 Liability of private technology contractors

Public authorities increasingly depend on private service providers for technological infrastructure.

For example, a private contractor might develop an automated system for:

Public transport.

Digital identity.

Tax administration.

Public hospitals.

Municipal waste management.

Social welfare distribution.

Contractual allocation of responsibility does not automatically remove the government's statutory obligations.

The contractor may also face liability under applicable contract, tort, consumer, or data-protection rules.

5.3 Environmental public value and civil compensation

Environmental injury can affect both individual property and collective ecological interests.

Thai law recognizes several relevant forms of protection:

Compensation for personal injury.

Compensation for property damage.

Restoration of damaged natural resources.

Administrative enforcement.

Injunctions and other judicial remedies where legally available.

The Klity Creek and Sakom coastal disputes demonstrate why public value cannot be reduced to monetary compensation alone.

6. Autonomous public value governance and artificial intelligence

Thailand's digital transformation makes AI accountability an important emerging subject.

A. Algorithmic transparency

Government agencies should be able to explain the material factors behind automated decisions.

For example, an AI system used to distribute public housing should not rely on unexplained classifications that disadvantage particular groups.

B. Human oversight

High-impact administrative decisions should have appropriate human review.

This is particularly important for:

Social benefits.

Public healthcare.

Education access.

Housing allocation.

Licensing.

Regulatory enforcement.

C. Data protection

The Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) provides important safeguards for personal information.

Public authorities must consider the legal basis for processing, purpose limitation, security, data-subject rights, and applicable restrictions.

D. Cybersecurity and institutional responsibility

Government agencies should maintain appropriate safeguards against:

Data breaches.

Unauthorized access.

Manipulation of public databases.

Algorithmic corruption.

System outages.

Identity theft.

E. Algorithmic discrimination

An automated public-service system may indirectly discriminate against people because of inaccurate or biased training data.

Such conduct may raise questions under constitutional equality principles, administrative law, data-protection law, and civil liability rules.

7. Institutional responsibilities under Thai law

The success of autonomous public value governance depends on cooperation between several institutions.

These institutions collectively support accountability, legality, transparency, and public participation.

8. Major legal challenges in Thailand

8.1 Conflict between public and private interests

A public infrastructure project may generate economic benefits while damaging private property or community livelihoods.

The legal challenge is to balance collective benefits against individual rights through proportionality and lawful procedures.

8.2 Lack of technological accountability

Automated decisions may make it difficult to identify the responsible decision-maker.

Thailand needs clear institutional rules addressing the responsibility of government departments, system operators, and technology contractors.

8.3 Unequal distribution of public value

Digital public services may benefit technologically advanced urban communities while excluding rural populations.

Equal access must therefore remain an important governance objective.

8.4 Weak environmental enforcement

Environmental approvals are insufficient if authorities fail to monitor pollution and enforce environmental standards.

The Klity Creek litigation illustrates the importance of effective remediation.

8.5 Public participation and transparency

Public participation should be meaningful rather than merely formal.

The factory licensing and water management decisions demonstrate the importance of determining when consultation is legally required.

8.6 Fragmented legal responsibility

Autonomous governance frequently involves several public institutions and private contractors.

Unclear responsibility can delay remedies and make compensation difficult to obtain.

9. Recommendations for strengthening public value governance in Thailand

The following reforms could strengthen Thailand's legal framework:

Public value assessment: Require major public projects to assess social, economic, environmental, and human-rights consequences.

AI accountability legislation: Establish clear standards for automated administrative decision-making.

Public participation: Strengthen consultation procedures for projects affecting communities.

Civil liability reform: Clarify responsibility for harm resulting from automated government systems.

Digital transparency: Require appropriate explanations and review mechanisms for high-impact automated decisions.

Environmental restoration: Improve monitoring, compensation, and ecological remediation mechanisms.

Public procurement accountability: Strengthen transparency and oversight of public technology contracts.

Community protection: Improve access to remedies for people affected by infrastructure and environmental projects.

Data governance: Strengthen safeguards for government databases and personal information.

Judicial accessibility: Improve mechanisms for individuals and communities to challenge unlawful public decisions.

10. Conclusion

Civil Law and Autonomous Public Value Governance in Thailand represents an emerging interdisciplinary legal concept concerned with making public administration efficient, independent, transparent, and accountable.

The Thai legal framework already provides important foundations through the Constitution, Civil and Commercial Code, Act on Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials B.E. 2539, Administrative Procedure Act, Official Information Act, and environmental legislation.

The judicial decisions discussed above demonstrate several important principles:

Public authorities must respect individual and community rights.

Environmental protection is an important public interest.

Administrative discretion must comply with law.

Public participation is essential where legally required.

Government agencies can incur liability for negligence.

Public resources must be managed responsibly.

Technological innovation cannot eliminate legal accountability.

Ultimately, Thailand should develop an approach in which autonomous public administration serves the public rather than becoming an independent source of unreviewable governmental power.

11. Summary of the nine principal judicial decisions

Important case-law qualification: These decisions are not nine judgments establishing an autonomous public-value doctrine. They are relevant Thai judicial authorities and litigation examples from related fields. The Chiang Mai PM2.5 proceedings and the Klity Creek litigation also involve distinct procedural histories. The listed case references should not be treated as interchangeable with Supreme Court civil judgment numbers.

The most directly useful authorities for this topic are A.E.1/2560, A.587/2562, Order 630/2551, A.472/2557, and the Klity Creek litigation.

The discussion is an academic legal analysis, not a determination that every proposed autonomous governance mechanism is already expressly recognized under Thai legislation.