行政特權實務操作與爭議檢討

行政特權概念自我國大法官會議解釋引進以來，迄今除第585號、第627號解釋文與理由書外所揭示的適用條件與對象外，仍無其他較為具體的操作準則。第585號解釋理由書對行政首長認為所謂「可能影響或干預行政部門有效運作之資訊」者，例示了「…例如涉及國家安全、國防或外交之國家機密事項，有關政策形成過程之內部討論資訊，以及有關正在進行中之犯罪偵查之相關資訊等，均有決定不予公開之權力…」等資訊類別。客觀上似限於此三大類資訊，且高度尊重行政部門對此類資訊取捨之判斷。但觀察這三類資訊內容，卻有範圍無限延伸的可能，對行政首長的判斷也欠缺檢驗或制衡機制，對權力分立下行政權以外的其他權力正當行使，尤其是相關調查權的操作，是否會有過度侵犯的可能?對此，我國目前法制尚保持沉默。行政特權比較具體可考的內涵與操作經驗，以美國憲政實務最為完整。本文首先說明特權主張之主體、對象與界限，以及特權證立的正、反學說見解等，建立起特權制度的爭議主軸與發展背景。且由於行政特權是從憲政操作下逐步發展出來的權利，必須從重大實務個案中去了解，因此本文將花三分之一的篇幅，將美國歷史實務區分成三個階段作介紹，逐一釐清特權爭議中「公益原則及行政資訊控制權」、「絕對權或相對權」、「隱私作為特權主張之事由」、「司法介入特權爭議之定位與利弊取捨」、「少數政府的操作」、「政治力介入之影響」等議題運作實況。之後再以專章蒐集學說見解對這項議題各角度的分析、批判，找尋憲政學理上處置原則的應然。最後本文則回到我國現行法制下，關於政府體制、特權保護資訊類型、特權主體、法律執行需要以及責任政治原則等面向，行政特權應有如何之設計方向或策略進行建議，期待能給這項特權未來在立法形成自由下為設計時，較完整的參考資訊。

關鍵字

行政特權；總統機密特權；權力分立；釋字第五八五號解釋；釋字第六二七號解釋；國會調查權；公益原則；責任政治

並列摘要

Since the Justices of the Constitutional Court introduced the basic concept of “executive privilege” in Interpretations No.585、627, this privilege is still lack of specific operational criterion up to now. Interpretation No.585 has revealed that “…an executive chief, by the authority inherent in his or her executive powers, is entitled to decide not to make public any information that may affect or interfere with the effective operation of the executive branch.” It’s reasoning also exemplified three types information those could be not to disclosure：”…matters relating to such national secrets as national security, defense or diplomacy; internal discussions in the process of policy-making; and information regarding existing criminal investigations.” And highly respect the executive chief’s measurements and claims. But if we take a closer survey, it seems those contents and scopes of the three types of information might be over extended, or even boundless；There is still deficient of an check and balance system to the executive chief’s measurements and claims. Privilege like that exist under the principle of separation of powers might led to a certain amount of conflicts, especially causing invasions to other powers core functions, such as congressional investigation. The legal system in Taiwan still be silence to it. As for the concrete definition and operational experience of executive privilege, the United State of America’s constitutional practice should be the most complete. This article will begin from introducing the body who can claim the privilege, the object and the boundaries of the privilege, and the main argues about the legitimacy of the privilege, to establish the shapes and background of the privilege system. Due to the privilege is gradually derived from the constitutional practice, we could only observe and study it from the major cases. Thus this article will take a close look into the U.S. practice, dividing evolution of the U.S. history into three periods, to understand the core issues such as “public welfare considering and executive information control.”、"the absoluteness or relativity of the privilege "、”the privacy issues ”、”the intervention of Jurisdiction ”、”the operations of minority government” and ”political intervene ”. Then we introduce the academic researches from constitutional theories to analysis and criticize those developments. At the end, we look back to Taiwan constitutional and legal system, to examine the respects as government system、privilege information types、the body who can claim the privilege、law executing needs and the accountability of politics. Find out the designing directions the privilege for future legislation.

並列關鍵字

executive privilege ； Interpretation No.585 ； Interpretation No.627 ； internal discussions ； check and balance ； separation of powers ； conflict ； public welfare ； privacy ； political intervene

參考文獻

林明鏘（1993）。＜公務機密與行政資訊公開＞，《台大法學論叢》，第23卷第1期。

包靜怡（2009）。違憲審查制度中政治問題理論之研究—以司法院大法官解釋為核心，國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。

Matthew Cooper Weiner. (1996). Note, In the Wake of Whitewater：Executive

Jonathan K. Geldert. (2008). Presidential Advisors and Their Most Unpresidential

Michael J. Mongan. (Dec. 2005). Fixing FACA：The Case for Exempting

國際替代計量

行政特權實務操作與爭議檢討

全文下載

主題瀏覽