查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 行政程序法命令訂定程序之研究=On the Rulemaking Procedure in the Administrative Procedure Act |
---|---|
作者 | 廖元豪; | 書刊名 | 華岡法粹 |
卷期 | 27 1999.12[民88.12] |
頁次 | 頁301-338 |
分類號 | 588.135 |
關鍵詞 | 行政程序法; 法規命令; 行政規則; 命令訂定程序; 民主原則; 權力分立; 司法審查; 預告及評論; 管制國家; Administrative procedure act; Legislative rules; Nonlegislative rules; Rulemaking procedure; Democracy; Separation-of-powers; Judicial review; Notice-and-comment; Regulatory state; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國行政程序法已經通過,但是對於其中第四章「法規命令與行政規則」之規定,或由於該章主要襲自美國而非歐陸行政程序法之規定,一般學界對其了解程度似頗為有限,相關文獻亦較為欠缺。 然而命令訂定程序的規定,可以突破傳統行政法模式中,僅重視具體個案法律關係的缺陷。藉由擴大公眾參與、強化司法審查等機制,將行政決策行為納入民主與司法的雙重控制。 學界似多將行政命令之訂定程序解為「訓示規定」,但本文反對之,行政程序法第四章,已明定法規命令之訂定(包括修正、廢止)應經「預告及評論」程序,作者比較美國法制與實務,以為這樣的規定不但具有強制力,而且應衍申出命令訂定機關之「斟酌義務」,甚至第一六○條之「行政規則登載公報」之規定,本文也主張其具有法律效力,足以影響(依據該規則所作成之)處分的效力,唯有如此解釋,才能使行政程序法之程序規定具有意義。進一步而言,司法機關必須能夠對於違反命令訂定程序之行為,進行審查。凡是未履行第四章相關程序,或是履行時未盡到「斟酌義務」,繫爭命令之效力均應受影響。 |
英文摘要 | The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) has been passed in 1999. However, the administrative law academics in Taiwan seemed to pay little attention upon the "rulemaking procedure" in APA. Perhaps the reason why is that the rulemaking procedure provisions in APA are learned front the United States, a country where most of our administrative law scholars have not been familiar. The author introduces the American experiences of rulemaking procedures, shows that such procedures can correct the bias and defects of Traditional-Administrative-Law-Model. The Model merely focuses upon the concrete administrative decisions, insisting that the goal of administrative law is to protect people from government abuse. The real policy-making administrative action - rulemaking - is usually ignored. Such a Model imposes insufficient control upon administrative authority, however, and they cannot ensure the accountability and democratic character of agency decisionmaking. The rulemaking procedures in APA, specially the "notice-and-comment" procedure can revise such incapability of traditional Model, because it can expand the public participation, strengthen the democratic and judicial control of administration. Some scholars consider that the rulemaking procedure provisions are declaratory in nature. This Article opposes such a proposition. The, author argues that the rulemaking procedures - notice-and-comment, publication of internal yules.… - are legally binding, i.e. if the agency promulgates. legislative rule without observing the notice-and-comment procedure, or even paying insufficient considerations upon the relevant pro-and-con opinion, the rule is void and the Grand Justices or reviewing courts have the duty to invalidate it and remand the agency to reopen procedures. If the internal rule, has never been published in the government register or bulletin, the agency cannot cite them to make decisions, and any person may not in any manner be required to reort to, or be adversely affected by them. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。