臺灣行政執行組織與制度之政經分析，2001-2016 －以公法上金錢給付義務案件為中心

The Political Economy of the Organization and System of Administrative Enforcement in Taiwan, 2001-2016 - A Focus on Implementing the Monetary Obligation Cases of Public Law

王金豐(Chin-Feng Wang)

指導教授 ： 蕭全政

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201601828

摘要

各國有關公法上金錢給付義務行政執行制度之選擇，乃基於其各該政經社文背景。臺灣作為一個大陸法系且發展上相對落後的已開發國家，政府本即肩負以法律規範人民權利義務關係之重責大任；而行政機關之任務，則係以有效率的公權力貫徹法律之規範，以維護社會秩序並實現公平正義。至於「人權保障」，在法制上應以「法律保留」及「法律優位」等「法治國原則」，加以規範；在執行實務上，則是透過復查、訴願及行政訴訟之方式，藉由行政機關之自我審查及司法權之最終審判，來落實對人權的保障。1998年行政執行法修正時，立法者企圖以將執行機關設置在法律人最多的法務部的方式，想要達到保障人權的目的，無異太過簡化問題的複雜性。
其次，從比較制度觀點來看，大陸法系的德國及日本之行政執行制度，公法上金錢給付義務案件皆由原處分機關自力執行，美國的財稅案件也是由稅捐機關自力執行，則台灣為何不能由原處分機關自力執行？尤其是稅捐機關。且由於執行機關與移送機關的分立，造成了二者之間的齟齬及溝通、聯繫成本，對於行政效率的提升及義務人權益的保障，也都有負面的影響。
再其次，在行政效能方面，行政執行處（分署）的執行績效確實比法院時代佳，但卻是以一定程度的限制或侵害人權為代價；在滯欠大戶案件的執行效率方面，也尚有進步的空間。換言之，執行分署基於其行政機關之本質，無疑在「企業化經營」及「績效管理」方面取得了良好的成果，但法務部行政執行署所宣稱的組織目標，即「落實公權力」與「人民權益之維護」，卻在其所建立及引以為傲的「績效評比」制度中，被邊緣化了，而且無法真正引導執行人員為了執行績效所採取之「資源利用行為」，即執行案件與執行手段之選擇。
最後，本文認為如要落實公法上金錢給付義務事件由行政機關自力執行之目的，即「提升行政效率」與「實現公平正義」，有關執行機關選擇之最佳方案，應係由原處分機關自力執行，次佳方案則是由財政部專責執行，因為大部分的應納金額來自稅捐案件；如要維持目前由法務部行政執行署及其分署專責執行之制度，則應加強執行機關與移送機關之間的聯繫、合作關係。現行的執行績效評比制度也應調整其評分項目及比重，否則目前執行績效大部分來自小額案件的現象將難以改變，滯欠大戶案件之績效也無法有效提升，外界仍然會持續批評執行人員「柿子挑軟的吃」，所謂「公平正義」云云，恐怕無法真正實現。

關鍵字

行政執行 ； 公法上金錢給付義務 ； 偏差 ； 法體系 ； 執行機關 ； 績效評比 ； 公平正義 ； 人權保障

並列摘要

The choice about system of administrative enforcement on implementing the monetary obligation cases of public law in each country is based on her own political, economic, social and cultural backgrounds. As a relatively backward developed civil law country, the responsibility of Taiwan government is to regulate people's rights and obligations by laws. The tasks of Administrative Agencies are to fulfill legal conditions by effectively public power, maintain the social order and so that fairness and justice may be upheld. As for “rights protection”, it should be regulated with the rule of law, including the principles of “legal reservation” and “preemption of statute” on law system, and implemented by review, administrative appeal and litigation on execution practice. It simplified the complexity of the problem for the legislators while attempting to resolve the problems by setting the organization of administrative enforcement in Ministry of Justice.
Secondly, from the point of view of comparative institutional, as a civil law country, Germany and Japan’s administrative enforcement agencies on implementing monetary obligation cases of public law are the original agencies which made the administrative disposition. In US, the administrative enforcement agency on implementing financial obligation cases is the original agency, too. So, why not in Taiwan? Especially taxes authority. The separation of the enforcement agency and the original agency results in discord and communication costs between agencies, negatively affecting administrative efficiency and protection of obligators’ rights.
Thirdly, although the implementing performances of branches of the administrative enforcement agency are much better than the courts’, it was at the expense of certain degree of restrictions or violations of human rights. There's space for progress in the cases of overdue fees or fines exceeding NT$10,000,000. In the other word, the braches did very well in aspect of “enterprise management” and “performance management”, but the organization goals claimed by the Administrative Enforcement Agency, “Implementation of the public authority” and “protection of people’s rights”, have been marginalized by the “performance rating system”. The goals can’t induce the executors’ “resource utilization behavior” for better performance, too.
Finally, this paper argues that, the best enforcement organization of implementing the monetary obligation cases of public law “enhance administrative efficiency” and “uphold fairness and justice” should be the original agencies. The second choice is the enforcement agency transfers to Ministry of Finance. The third is maintaining the system, but enhancing the corporation and connection between the original and enforcement agency, and amending the performance rating system.

並列關鍵字

administrative enforcement ； monetary obligation of public law ； bias ； system of law ； administrative enforcement agency ； performance appraisal ； justice ； rights protection

參考文獻

楊小青，2009，〈行政執行處執行效率-資料包絡分析法之實證研究〉，桃園：私立中原大學會計研究所碩士論文。

司法院民事廳，2007，《法院辦理民事執行實務參考手冊》，臺北：京美印刷企業股份有限公司。

葛克昌，2011，〈租稅法發展專題回顧：近年來行政法院判決之分析〉，《臺大法學論叢》，40（特刊）：1907-1944。

謝哲勝，2001，〈英美法和大陸法的融和〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，6：33-64。

城仲謀，2001，〈21世紀行政法學發展發展的新趨勢〉，《法令月刊》，52（12）：3-50。