專業主義下我國地方警察人事權之研究

The study of the authority on police personnel of R.O.C. under professionalism

王隆(Lung Wang)

指導教授 ： 趙永茂

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2004.02076

摘要

我國警察法於民國四十二年六月十五日公佈實施，規定警察官
制，官規應由中央立法，經內政部於五十三年開始依據公務人員任用法第十七條及警察法第三條規定，針對警察特性著手研訂警察人員管理條例草案，於民國六十五年一月十七日經總統公佈施行，警察人事管理即走向制度化與專業化。一條鞭警察人事制度正式法制化。民國七十六年政府宣告戒嚴解除，地方權利意識高漲。民國七十八年縣市長選舉後，台北縣、宜蘭縣、新竹縣、彰化縣、高雄縣、屏東縣、嘉義市等七個非執政黨籍人士當選之縣市長組成「民主縣市長聯盟」，爭取地方更多權限。七十九年初縣市警察局長調動，宜蘭縣為爭取警察局長人事權，對警政署派任之警察局長予以杯葛，引發警察局長人事權之爭議。民國八十三年省縣自治法及直轄市自治法公佈實施後，新當選之台北市長亦對警察人員調動任免權展現強硬的堅持態度。嗣後每逢警察局長異動，對警察局長人事權皆引發或多或少的爭議，對警察執法尊嚴與士氣造成傷害，亦促使中央與地方警察人事權問題浮上檯面。學者專家針對問題研究希望提出妥善解決方案，以使警察人員能專心維護良好治安及保持行政中立，公正執法。
本研究旨在以專業主義觀點，探討現行我國地方警察人事權存在之劃分爭議，試圖尋求解決之途徑。本研究以台灣地區各直轄市、縣(市)政府、行政院人事行政局、內政部、內政部警政署、以及各市、縣(市)政府警察局為範疇，實證研究地區以台北市、台北縣、苗栗縣、嘉義縣、台南市、台東縣、金門縣等縣市為觀察研究對象。並以前述各機關之首長或警察局長，以及熟諳警察人事之學者專家十五位為主要訪談對象，透過深度訪談進行資料收集。
研究結果發現：1.受訪人員普遍認為警察屬於一種專業。2.受訪人員對台灣現行警察局長遴選做法普遍建議仍由中央一條鞭作業為宜，但須注意倫理。3.受訪人員認為地方警察人事權應劃分中央與地方兩個層級，警正一階以上職務歸中央，警正二階以下職務由地方任免遷調。4.受訪人員認為警察人事應走向均權制。5.受訪人員認為目前地方自治生態下，地方要擁有充分警察人事權必須有配套措施。6.受訪人員認為建立一個不受干擾的獨立警察人質制度有其優缺。7.受訪人員提出增強警民合作之公民參與具體機制。8.受訪人員認為專業主義下的地方警察人事權目前有一些值得檢討之問題。9.受訪人員普遍認為英國警察權力委員會、日本公安委員會等相關警察人事制度在台灣恐不易實施。
本研究綜合理論分析與訪談結果，提出具體改進建議如后：1.
建立一套公開遴選警職人才庫及任期歷練考核制度如:(1)共同研擬
警職遴選制度。(2)建立任期歷練及能力鑑別制度。(3)建立遴任協調機制。(4)建立職務升遷制度。2.適度調整警察人事權並走向均權制。3.設置公民參與之「警政委員會」，期兼顧中央與地方人事權限。4.建構法制與民主機制之警察機關遴任權限、方式、要件與程序。5.建立公民參與之機制。6.建構公民參與地方警政合作夥伴關係之公民社會，如：成立認證合格之「社區輔助警察志工」制度，以及成立認證合格之「參與社區安全組織志工」。

關鍵字

地方自治 ； 警察人員 ； 警察人事權 ； 公民參與 ； 專業主義 ； 地方制度法

並列摘要

On June 15th, 1953, the highest administration promulgated the Act of Police Affairs, which regulated police bureau and police personnel. In 1964, the Ministry of the Interior drafted the Act of Police Personnel, which was signed later by the
President on Jan. 17th, 1976. Since that time, police personnel has become
systematized and professionalized, and then the central-government-controlled police personnel was legally established. With the Martial Law revoked in 1987, the awareness of executing power in local governments was aroused. After the prefectural/mayoral election in 1989, seven newly-elected county chiefs and mayors in Taipei County, I-Lan County, Hsing-Chu County, Zhang-Hua County, Kaohsiuang County, Pin-Dong County, and Cha-Yi City organized “the Alliance of Democratic County Chiefs and Majors.” In the appointment of some new Commissioners, I-Lan County Chief rejected the newly pointed Commissioners by the National Police Administration in order to show his authority on police personnel, thereby provoking a controversy between National Police Administration and the local government. With the Law of Self-Governing in the Province and the Municipality effectuated in 1994, the newly-elected Taipei City Mayor showed a firm attitude toward the appointment of police staff. Since that time, there has been some controversy whenever a Commissioner is appointed by National Police Administration. As a result,
personal dignity and morale in police circles was adversely influenced. Thereafter,
such an issued is usually put on the table for more discussion between National Police Administration and the local government. Some scholars and experts has addressed
such an issue and then figured out some solutions so that the police are able to focus on maintaining social safety and perform their duties with political neutrality and with
an unbiased attitude.
From the viewpoint of professionalism, this study is aimed to the disputed issue on the authority division in the police personnel of right of R.O.C. in order to seek the solution. This study is conducted with the aids from municipalities, county/city governments, the Personnel Administration of Executed Yuan, the Ministry of the Int-
erior, National Police Administration, and county police/city bureaus. This study is conducted largely in the following areas: Taipei City, Taipei County, Miou-Li County, Cha-Yi County, Tainan City, Taidong County, Kimmeng County, etc. Altogether 15 members, including the commissioners of county police/city bureaus, scholastic experts on police personnel.
Through detailed interviews and data collections, we have some finding as following:
1.Interviewees generally regard police work as a kind of professional job.
2.Interviewees have the opinion that the appointment of the commissioners of county/city police bureaus should be in accordance with the policy of central-government-controlled police personnel, with some stress on “senior officers having the priority for promotion.”3.Interviewees think that the authority on local police personnel should be shared both by central and local governments. The authority to appoint middle-ranking
officers of level 4 or higher should be executed by National Police Administration. On the other hand, middle-ranking officers of level 3 or lower should be executed
by the local government.
4.Interviewees think the authority to police personnel should be equally shared by both National Police Administration and the local government.
5.Interviewees think under current local self-rule, if local governments want to have full authority on police personnel, they should adopt some supplementary policies.
6.Interviewees think either to establish an independent police system or not, there are both advantages and disadvantages.
7.Interviewees advise that a people-involved public institution can be established so as to strengthen the cooperation between the police and people.
8.Interviewees think that, from the viewpoint of professionalism, there are still some other issues on how to implement police personnel policy
9.Most interviewees are unsure that these organizations such as Police Right Committee of Britain or Public Safety Committee of Japan are not suitable to the
police personnel system in Taiwan.
This study provides some theoretical analyses and interview results as follows:
1.Establish a public police administration database and merit system, such as, (1) to discuss police administration system (2) to establish merit and ability
discrimination system (3) to establish administration negotiation system (4) to establish improvement system
2.Adjust police personnel system in order to divide the authority on police personnel.
3.Establish people-involved “police committee” in which the issue on the division in the authority on police personnel can be well-addressed
4.Establish the scope of authority, methods, necessities, and procedures of police administration that are not against law and democratic system.
5.Establish citizens partaking system.
6.Establish a civil society that people to be partakers and cooperate with police, such as, establishment of qualified “community police volunteer” system, and qualified “partaking community safety volunteer institution”.

並列關鍵字

citizens partaking ； the authority on police personnel ； local self-rule ； professionalism ； Local system Law ； police officers

參考文獻

二、中央與地方權限劃分之相關文獻

2.竇文暉--我國縣市政府組織與職權之研究

3.張國雄--地方自治警衛事權之研究

2.鄭宏輝--我國中央與地方權限爭議之研究

1.Greenwood Ernest--The Element of Professionalization