日本國憲法國政調查權之研究─兼論中華民國憲法之國政調查權─

戰後日本在盟軍總司令部占領下，實施以民主主義為方針的波茨坦體制。戰後日本國憲法之國政調查權即以麥克阿瑟草案國政調查權之條文為基礎，加以繼受、修改而成。最後，日本國憲法第六十二條全文為：「兩議院各得為關於國政之調查，並得因調查之必要，要求證人出席，及提出證言及記錄。」而國會另外又於一九四八年制定了「議院證人的宣誓及證言等相關法律」(議院證言法)，將國會侮辱處罰權採法院科予刑罰之方式來行使。相較於戰前日本憲法並無任何國政調查權之條文規定且受議會法之限制，毫無實質效果，戰後日本國政調查權乃有憲法保障，並規定了實質的調查手段，然而此國政調查權可說偏向美國國政調查權制度。日本國憲法國政調查權法主體為兩議院，國政調查權為議院之權限，排除議員為行使主體，但實際上，日本乃以常任委員會為中心實行國政調查權，亦得由議院議決設置特別委員會行使，並且針對政黨國家化之現象，亦有論者提出「少數者調查權」作為今日國政調查權的課題。其次，日本國憲法國政調查權法性質係指國會為適正行使其權限而收集必要資訊、確認事實之內在、固有權限，至於國政調查權的學說，戰後初期則以統治機關權力分配的角度來討論，遂有「獨立權能說」、「補助權能說」之對立。其後，國政調查權在面對日本政界接連的貪污瀆職醜聞，並無發揮作用及效果，故學者遂跳脫前述兩說之窠臼進而賦予國政調查權新意之下，展開新的學說，從議會與國民關係之角度來討論作為國民追究政治責任手段之「知的權利說」、「國民主權說」以及強調行政國家下作為議會對行政統制權之「政府統制權說」。再者，關於日本國憲法國政調查權範圍與界限之爭議，國會行使國政調查權有其本身目的與手段上的制約。調查目的限於為行使憲法所賦予國會諸權限，調查手段禁止適用超過憲法所規定之強制手段。於此，特別是與司法權關係上，有來自司法權獨立調和之要求，一般是在目的與手段有嚴格制約之下得與司院並行調查；與行政權關係上國政調查的界限為公務員保秘義務，其依議院證言法之規定得拒絕國政調查，但學者對此多有批判。國政調查權與檢察權之關係上基於檢察權的準司法性質，則有一定之限制。此外，特別是與人權之關係上，不論調查目的與手段上，皆有憲法保障人權之制約，不得侵害國民權利。日本國憲法國政調查權之手段之問題點則有是否可行使超過憲法所規定更強力之調查手段、證人的人權問題等。最後討論中華民國憲法下國政調查權的本質．檢討與展望，論述台灣在中華民國憲法第九十五、九十六條之監察院調查權；以及立法院之「文件調閱權」、「調查權」之問題點。其次，考察各界所提出台灣新憲法草案的各版本中對國政調查權之規定。將以上所考察之日本國會國政調查權之研究，提出對台灣制定新憲法之國政調查權的建議。

關鍵字

國政調查權；少數者調查權；議院證言法；行政統制權說；國會調查權

並列摘要

After WWII, Japan was under the occupation of GHQ. GHQ made the draft for Japan Constitution (named by the Douglas MacArthur Draft), and took the investigation power into the draft. Therefore, the investigation power also was gone into the Japan Constitution. It is the article 62 of Japan Constitution “Each House may conduct investigations in relation to government, and may demand the presence and testimony of witnesses, and the production of records.” Secondly, the investigation power of Japan Constitution means that the inherent power for Congress necessary to assistance getting the information and finding the fact. It is for Congress in order to correctly use its constitutional power. In fact, the Congress of Japan has used the investigation power until now and usually used the committee and sometimes used by the ad hoc committee. Today, the future suggestion for the investigation power in Japan considers introducing German few power provision. Thirdly, theories about the investigation power in Japan are that the investigation power is an independent power or an assistance power. The other theories analysis the investigation power was a tool fulfilling the citizen the right to know. And being a power of administration-controlling for the Congress to inspect the administration. However, the investigation power in Japan has restriction in its purpose and method. Especially, it is in relationship with the judicial and the administration. It strictly restricted by the purpose and method not to invade the independence of judicature when investigates. There are the same principles between the investigation power and the administration privilege. Finally, we have to discuss how the investigation power in ROC Constitution. The Control Yuan investigation power is according to article 95, 96 of the ROC Constitution, and Legislative Yuan got the investigation power through Lord Chancellor’s explain in a word No.325, No. 585 explain. Recently many think-tanks and groups making the new Taiwan constitution will be a consensus. There is will inspecting how the investigation power is adopted in those Taiwan constitution drafts, and suggesting when Taiwan Constitution making in the future.