政風機構人員行使查處職權合法性之研究

Abstract

我國政風機構之存在，有其歷史背景因素，然而歷經多次改革迄今，現成為法務部廉政署隸屬之廉政專責機構，然而法務部廉政署組織法賦予廉政署具有司法警察權限，俾以對於公務人員貪污瀆職之行為進行司法調查與偵辦，屬司法人員，而政風機構雖基於人事一條鞭制度歸屬於廉政署管理，然仍屬一般機關之行政人員，爰在辦理機關員工可能涉及貪瀆不法之查處案件時，行使之查處職權必與廉政署司法警察權限有本質上的不同。 本研究採文獻分析與法學解釋的方法，分別就相關理論、政風機構組織與其人員查處職權、查處職權行使之合法性與改革芻議等主，輔以近年來政風機構人員行使查處職權之行為所引發之案例爭議為軸，對於政風機構行使查處職權實務上可能面臨之涉及違法疑慮進行分析與論述，希冀透過本文之研究，能試圖提出棉薄之改革芻議，俾以查處職權行使之過程中，在保障相對人權利與維護公共利益間尋求平衡，並積極建構正當程序，期避免自我擴權，屢生濫權爭議。

The civil service ethics institution in Taiwan has its historical background and has undergone reform for many times. It is a designated body under the Agency Against Corruption, Ministry of Justice. Yet, the Agency Against Corruption has been granted the authority as judicial police under the Organic Act of the Agency Against Corruption, Ministry of Justice thereby the agency is empowered to conduct investigations and press charges against civil servants accused of corruption and malfeasance. As such, the personnel of the civil service ethics institution play the role as law enforcement officers. Under the uniform mode of control, the civil service ethics institution is administered by the Agency Against Corruption, which is classified as administrative personnel of common government agencies. In pursuit of investigations and pressing charges against related personnel of government agencies allegedly involved in corruption and malfeasance, their authority of investigation and disposal could be essentially different from the authority of judicial police of the Agency Against Corruption. In this study, the analysis of literatures and legal interpretation are adopted. The subject is to examine related theories, the organization of the civil service ethics units and its personnel’s authority of investigations/punishments, the legality of power exercise, and related reform. The dispute over the behaviors of the anti-corruption officers performing their duties to investigate and press charges will also be examined. The legal concerns of the civil service ethics units exercising their authority of investigation and disposal will be analyzed and discussed. This paper is in attempt to give recommendations finding a proper balance between the protection of human rights and public interest in the course of exercising authority of investigation and disposal and thereby establishing a due process to avoid self-aggrandizement and causing controversy over abuses of power frequently