論我國行政程序聽證制度之建構—以美國法為比較基礎

A Study on Administrative Hearing Process in Taiwan —Comparison with Legal Scheme of the United States

蔡穎瑩(YING-YIN TSAI)

指導教授 ： 郭介恆

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2008年)

摘要

有鑑於行政程序法制之潮流，希望透過程序控制之導向，一方面提高行政決定之正確性以及
妥適性；另一方面著眼於事前預防勝於事後治療。本文從憲法之正當法律程序原則為開展，美國
正當程序之法源有憲法、判例法、成文法、行政命令和行政規則。本文將重心置於美國憲法和美
國行政程序法之介紹。由美國憲法增修條文出發，再由美國司法實務上觀察「正當程序」之發展
歷程和學說之爭議。討論美國憲法上正當法律程序之起源，以及其憲法實務上之發展，藉以尋求
其對於程序保障之最低要求。進而介紹美國行政程序法（Administrative Procedure Act，縮寫APA）
，由於美國法對於程序保障之要求嚴苛與否，通常係行政機關對於程序之要求高於立法者之要求
；立法者之要求又高於憲法之要求。換言之，憲法所提高的，僅是最低限度之程序保障。而立法
者扮演的角色甚為重要，一方面為實現憲法所要求，即立法必須將憲法為具體之體現，維護憲法
之意旨，保障憲法所欲保護之人權，具體傳達憲法之理念；另一方面是加諸行政機關義務，遵循
成文法之規定，並得適當的授權行政機關制定合乎憲法之內部程序規則。惟必須注意者，雖然成
文法為體現正當法律程序之法源之一，但並不一定要有成文法之明文規範，行政機關才必須遵守
程序保障之要求，因此，不管「成文法」（statutes）是否有規定該基本程序，人民均可要求政府遵
守或提供該等基本程序。
對照於我國法，正當法律程序是否能夠在我國憲法中找到依據。本文試圖從我國憲法所規範
之基本權出發，尋找正當程序在我國憲法中之規範基礎。並藉由大法官解釋之脈絡下嘗試找尋正
當程序存在於我國憲法中之蹤跡，並且嘗試將正當程序之概念，正立於我國憲法原則中。最後，
回歸我國行政程序法之聽證程序之討論。我國行政實務上，經常將聽證和公聽等概念混用，且法
規命令之聽證程序並未做出詳盡之規定，導致一般行政機關難以適用，故本文主張制定聽證程序
之最低程序要求，針對不同之行政行為，適用程度不同之聽證程序。

關鍵字

正當法律程序 ； 行政聽證 ； 聽證

並列摘要

In light of the tendency of administrative law, for two reasons that the importance of process-oriented control is given an essential role, one is to increase the accuracy of the administrative decisions; another is to emphasis that prevention is better than cure. There are five potential sources of procedural requirements that agencies must follow in American legal scheme—agency rules, the Constitution, statutes, executive orders, and the common law.
This thesis starts from introducing and analyzing the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, moreover discussing the disputes of due process between the Courts and seek to find out the limitation on required procedures. Because of this constant process of cross-fertilization between the Due Process Clause, statutorily required procedures and procedures required by agency riles, most procedural safeguards employed by agencies have their rooted in the Due Process Clause. Due process required a “hearing”, and the Court meant by hearing the kind of proceeding traditionally used by courts to litigate civil disputes. It continuously observes Administrative Procedure Act. Statutes are the most important single source of procedural requirements. An agency’s choice of procedures in a given case may be affected by several statutes.
Comparison with our legal scheme of administrative law, could we interpret and find the foundation of the Due Process Clause in our Constitution scheme? This thesis tries to find out and discuss the foundation of the Due Process Clause in our constitutional rights scheme in theoretical and practical ways. Finally, observing our administrative hearing system. In our administrative practices, agencies sometimes can’t distinguish between formal hearing and public hearing. For the absence of other mechanisms which can distinguish between formal hearing and public hearing, the Executive Tuan has to agree to include such a procedure in to the Draft.

並列關鍵字

Due process of law ； administrative hearing ； hearing ； adjudication ； rulemaking

參考文獻

法務部印製，《行政程序法草案》（1995 年3 月16 日）

羅傳賢，《行政程序法論》，五南圖書，（2004年）

蘇宏杰，《從正當法律程序看行政處分聽證之問題》，台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（2005年）

林明鏘，〈論行政程序法中律師之功能〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第30 卷第4 期（2001

許宗力，〈基本權程序保障功能的最新發展─評司法院釋字第488 號解釋〉，《月