訴願管轄權限之劃分-以地方組織法與委任實務為例

Abstract

現行中央法律規範，常以「本法所稱主管機關：在中央為○○○；在直轄市為直轄市政府；在縣（市）為縣（市）政府」之規定方式，將事務權限概括分為中央與地方，並因此建立行政救濟中之訴願管轄層級。惟事務權限劃分於中央與地方後，地方政府卻再於組織自治條例中增訂授權條款，並透過行政程序法第15條第1項之委任規定，將權限委任給其所屬機關，而其結果，除了處分名義機關的改變外，並造成了行政救濟之訴願管轄層級的改變，即本屬中央層級之訴願審議案件，改由地方政府層級為之，此種作法是否妥適，實有討論必要，尤其未來將增加不少直轄市(如台北市、新北市、台中市、台南市、高雄市)、準直轄市(如桃園縣)之情況下，此種透過增訂組織自治條例織授權條款方式，並依此將權限委任授權於一級機關，將成為常態，並易引發訴願案件不公平之爭議。 本文以訴願制度及行政管轄權之分析為理論思考架構基礎，來評析地方政府以地方組織自治條例作為權限移轉方式之現行法制規範下之所以形成各種實務運作難題與爭議之成因，透過法律條文之釋義，檢討實際運作情形，用以釐清理論與實務之落差，突顯現行制度的矛盾與缺失。據此，本文認為地方政府組織法之授權條款，除將損害人民訴願權利外，並與自治事項及委辦事項之性質未盡相符；其次，行政管轄之變更，應從嚴認定，並應有作用法性質之法律明文，以免任意變更訴願管轄層。最後，鑒於地方組織法授權條款之可議性，本文並呼籲，有關於權限委任、委託之定義、適用範圍與要件及處理及認定原則，應更具體明確並提供中央作用法規之依據；在訴願部分，訴願管轄應配合行政程序法有關權限移轉之規定予以修正，而訴願委員會委員之遴選及主任委員之擔任，應避免由本機關遴選及擔任，以保持公正性。

According to the regulations that in this law, the management organization is ○○○ in the central government, is the municipal government in the municipality, and is the county (city) government in the county (city), the present central laws often divides administration authority into central and local, thereby establishing the level of the jurisdiction of administrative appeal in administrative remedies. However, after dividing administration authority into central and local, local governments add empowerment clauses in organizational autonomy laws and use delegation regulations, 15th 1st item, in administrative procedural laws to delegate the power to sub institutions. As a result, besides changing the punishment nominal institutions, the level of the jurisdiction of administrative appeal in administrative remedies is also changed. Thus, a case of administrative appeal that belongs to the central level is changed to the local level. Whether this method is appropriate is worthy of discussion, especially for the situation that many municipalities directly under the jurisdiction of the central government, such as Taipei City, New Taipei City, Taichung City, Tainan City, and Kaohsiung City, and quasi-municipalities, such as Taoyuan County, are increasing. Such way, that’s revising empowerment clauses in organizational autonomy laws, and delegating power to the first-level institutions will become the normality, resulting in the unfair dispute of the case of administrative appeal. This study adopts the theory of the administrative-appeal system and the administrative jurisdiction to analyze various pragmatically operative difficulties and causes of disputes resulting from local governments using organizational autonomy laws to delegate power. The author explores the actual operative situation through the explanation of laws to make clear the gap between the theory and the practice, which highlights the contradiction and drawbacks of the present system. Thus, this study thinks that the delegating clauses in local organizational laws not only lead harm to people’s rights of administrative appeal but also mismatch the nature of autonomous and delegating notes. Next, the change of the administrative jurisdiction should be recognized severely and it should have definite laws in order to avoid the arbitrary change of the level of the jurisdiction of administrative appeal. Lastly, owing to the dispute of delegating clauses in local organizational laws, this study suggests that power delegation as well as the definition, applicable scope, prerequisite, and recognizable principals of delegation should be more specific and definite, and central functional laws should be provided. As to administrative appeal, the jurisdiction of administrative appeal should coordinate the relative regulations of power transferring in administrative procedural laws. The selection of members and the chairman of administrative-appeal committee should avoid choosing by the self institution to maintain the fairness.