| 關 鍵 詞： |
聽證；正當法律程序；公聽；說明會；行政處分；法規命令；預備聽證；預告程序 |
| 中文摘要： |
近年來，隨著民主法治之進步，行政三法陸續於民國 90 年 1 月 1 日施行，人民權利受公權力侵害者，除得提起行政爭訟以尋求即時有效之救濟外，行政機關行使公權力更須符合正當法律程序原則，於行使公權力上，更須於事前提供人民聽證或陳述意見之機會，進一步以落實人民程序基本權之保障。惟我國行政程序法之聽證規定在實務上之運用，並不多見，個別行政作用法間應舉行公聽或說明會等之規定，是否等同應行聽證亦不無疑義。聽證是否為行政機關應踐行之必要程序？法制上應如何規範較為何宜？等，均不無爭議，有鑒於我國行政程序法中所規定之聽證制度，係參採美國法制所為立法，本文爰就我國法制現況運作，相對於美國法制之規範個案作比較研究，提出我國聽證法制之可作修正或補充之規範，作為實務運作及法制興革之參考。
行政程序法第 1 章第 1 節設有聽證程序之完整規定，同法第 155 條及第 156 條則設有法規命令舉行聽證之規定，似未區分行政處分及法規命令舉行聽證之不同程序及時機，參照美國法制聽證之舉行，旨在保障對個案處分不利相對人提供事前保障程序，並確保事證調查之周延，法規命令之作成，則係以通知評論程序（有類於我國之預告程序）作為主要之程序規範，以達博採周諮之效，僅於立法特別規定須踐行聽證程序者，始有舉行聽證之必要。我國實務運作上，亦有依法規或依職權辦理聽證作成行政處分或法規命令之作法，惟多數機關仍得依職權決定是否舉行聽證，且因辦理聽證之法效果，僅供行政機關參酌，以致聽證實施結果，成效未能彰顯。
行政處分之聽證，我國行政程序第 1 章第 10 節所規定之聽證程序，有類於司法上言詞辯論程序，有助於釐清爭議之法律事實，惟程序中之部分規定，仍與言詞辯論之程序不同，而經聽證之行政處分依行政程序法第 109 條規定，即不得再行提起訴願，聽證程序應對個案事實有確認之效力，聽證主持人之客觀公正及當事人之充分說明答辯等，均為公平聽證所不可或缺，參酌現有實務運作情形，尚非不能，宜可就行政程序法聽證程序相關規定予以補強，以兼顧人民之聽審權及行政效能。又因行政程序法為總則性立法，對於不同行政領域之專業不同，能否一體適用？本不無討論餘地，個別作用法之立法，允宜參採美國法制衡量事務本質之不同及實務運作之需要，訂定相關規定，以資適用，或有助於發揮聽證法制之功能，落實正當法律程序保障，同時得以兼顧行政效能。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
administrative hearing；notice and comment；due process of law；rulemaking；administrative decision |
| 英文摘要： |
In Taiwan, afer the Administrative Procedure Act promugated and enforced since 2001, the legal scheme of administrative hearing has been established to ensure any right and interest shall not be deprived or viloated without due process of law. However, due to the law confered administrative with discreation to decide wheather to host a administative hearing or not and the record of administrative rearing is only for agendcy’s discreation thus the law enforcement is not popular and satisified. Since the administrative hearing scheme in Taiwanese APA was drafed by refering to U.S. APA, this article reviews the experiences of Taiwan and U.S. in the field of administrative hearing in order to poopse necessary leagle schemen reform in Taiwan.
Under Taiwanese Apa, there are two types of hearing related to administrative rule making and decision rocedure. However, the law does not distinguish procedure difference between different administrative actons thus cause some confusions among the agenciew. In U.S., the hearing is designed to protect civil right under due process of law as a constitutional safeguard. In rule making process, notice and comment process is used to provide an opportunity for public participation with the only exception in which the law stipuated otherwise. In Taiwan, the agencys nornally adopt informal hearing to satisify the due process safguard and only handful agencys host administrative hearing addording to regulation which demand or authorized agensy to host administrative hearing. Public participation in an agency’s decision is insufficient and ineffecient as critizied by scholars.
According to Taiwannese APA, administrative hearing procedure is similar to the cour procedure with some different features and is helpful to clarify the issue of fact. A csae decided after an administrative hearing is not allowed to raise administrative appeal unde Article 109 of APA also. There are some necessary reforms are crucial for the protection of individual reight as follows: an objective hearing examiner and adequent opportunity of statement provided. Under Taiwwanese APA, administrative hearing is doable and practically needed. If some reforms shall be taken, the administative hearing will bothe good to the right to be heard and the administrative effeciciency. In addition, APA should not play the onlyone role to form the legal scheme of administrative hearing. Each legislation in different field of administrative could have play a better role to require an agency to fullfill the administrative service with due deligience and hearing in order to meet the due process of law.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、序言
貳、行政程序法規定及實務運作
參、美國聽證法制之比較
肆、聽證制度法制變革芻議
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|