Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
A Study on the Oral presention and Argument for Taiwan's Administrative Appeal Arising from the Perspective of due process.
|Authors: ||Chen, Yu-Feng|
|Contributors: ||NTOU:Institute of the Law of the Sea|
due process;natural justice;petition jurisdiction;oral presentation;oral argument
|Issue Date: ||2017-05-22T07:59:01Z
|Abstract: ||公正的程序空間，無疑是提供實質參與不可或缺的條件。人民行使參與法律程序之權利，以知悉權利行使之始點為必要，故保障人民獲取得行使權利之程序資訊，為正當法律程序對於主觀權利行使可能性之最低保障。 正當法律程序原則源自於「自然正義法則」(rules of natural justice)英美兩國在其普通法的價值上，派生了任何人都不得在自己的案件中充當法官(nemo iudex in causa sua, the rule against bias ,or"no man a judge in his own cause")，以及任何人為自己的辯護應當被公平聽取(audi alteram partem, the right to a fair hearing,or "hear the other side")二項原則，且更進一步從正當程序字面意義「公平程序」(fair procedure)，體現出國家應保證給予個人基本公平的待遇，在沒有給予聽證以為其權利辯護之機會，任何人將不被剝奪生命、自由、財產的理念，亦即「正當程序是政府的一般責任」。 本研究是從正當法律程序之理論與要件，博引我國司法院大法官對於正當法律程序之解釋，並旁徵美國聯邦最高法院之判例，共同檢視我國訴願法上陳述意見與言詞辯論之實施現況，同時檢討訴願法關於當事人聽證權利之規定，著重於行政效能之強化及行政自我省查之作用，視人民提起訴願為發動行政機關自我監督之客體，偏廢救濟之功能，有違人性尊嚴及人權保障之目的。 本文認為我國訴願制度將正當法律程序內涵中極重要之陳述意見與言詞辯論，授權由受理訴願機關依其判斷餘地來決定，應否給予訴願人陳述意見與言詞辯論之機會，並未能充分保障人民之權益，有悖憲法明文託付的行政救濟職責，更侵犯了憲法賦予的程序基本權範疇。訴願制度應該回歸救濟之本質，實踐正當法律程序來保障人權，尊重人性尊嚴以「人本身即是目的」的宗旨，體認國家是為人民而設立，非人民為國家而存在。所以國家不得以任何藉口或理由把人民貶為其統治作用的客體或手段，反而應積極努力為人民謀福祉，增進人民的利益。因此本文結論建議修改訴願法中有關陳述意見與言詞辯論之規定，使訴願當事人能充分享有憲法上之程序基本權。|
An equitable due process is undoubtedly an indispensible element of Substantive participation. The citizen’s rights to participate in legal process shall be based on acknowledging of the details on perspective of due process. Therefore, guaranteeing theirs rights to have access such information is essential. The just due process is originated from rules of natural justice. Both United Kingdom and the United States of America has came out with the principles of “no man a judge in his own cause” in their perspective of common law, alone with the right to a fair hearing, furthermore showing a nation is responsible of proving it’s citizens to be treated fairly by explaining the meaning behind “fair procedure”. No one’s life, freedom or property shall be taken away without given a proper hearing to argue for his/her rights. This study well cited interpretations from Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan towards due process of law along with extensive evidences from legal precedents generated by Supreme Court of the United States, jointly examining the current implementation status for opinion via statement and oral argument according to Taiwan’s Administrative Appeal Act; meanwhile, it reviewed that the administrative appellant’s right of hearing as provided in the aforesaid Act focused more on the reinforcement of administrative effectiveness and administrative self-checking effect, but deems people who file an administrative appeal to initiate self-supervision of administrative body as an object, which may violate the purpose of human dignity and human right protection without equally emphasis of remedy function. This article considered that the appeal system in Taiwan authorizing important opinion via statement and oral argument in the contents of legal procedure to the agency with jurisdiction of administrative appeal to decide at its discretion if it should give administrative appellant an opportunity to pose his/her opinion via statement and oral argument did not fully protect people’s right, and obviously violate not only the duty of administrative remedy expressly entrusted by the constitution, but also the scope of basic procedure right given by the constitution. The appeal system should return to the nature of remedy to practice due process for the protection of human rights and respect of human dignity based on “man itself is purpose”, realizing the state is set up for the people not that the people exist for the state. Consequently, the state shall not degrade the people to be an object or mean for its ruling function, but actively try its effort for the well-being and improve people’s interest. As result, this article concluded opinion via statement and oral argument as stipulated in Administrative Appeal Act should be amended, allowing the administrative appellant to fully enjoy the basic procedure right of the constitution.
|Appears in Collections:||[海洋法律研究所] 博碩士論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in NTOUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.