「卷宗閱覽」與「資訊公開」制度扞格之檢討

Abstract

我國行政程序法第46條之「卷宗閱覽請求權」與政府資訊公開法之「資訊公開請求權」，此兩種權利係我國人民資訊取得權之依據。惟在我國法規範體系及核心思想未完整調和之下，此兩種制度出現扞格之處。而本研究係以行政程序法與政府資訊公開法為主要討論範圍，並藉此作為探討渠等間衝突成因之基礎。 本研究第二章則係以了解「資訊取得之緣由」，作為認識卷宗閱覽其意義及目的之背景，並自現行行政程序法之制定沿革及得拒絕閱覽卷宗資料之事由，剖析現行卷宗閱覽請求權之條文用字上可增加細膩度之處。接續係藉由分析行政機關作成之函釋，及司法機關作成之判決，整理出實務上係如何操作此項制度，並提出本研究認為值得贊同或應再行斟酌之論點。 第三章的部分，本研究則是爬梳最初各國際組織及代表性國家倡議「知的權利」的過程，並且蒐整出此項權利於我國憲法之依據。於了解我國制定政府資訊公開法之立法歷程後，本研究同樣對於行政機關所作成之函釋及司法機關之判決進行整理，解讀出其中對於人民之權利已充分保護或保護不足之見解，同時表達本研究認為較為適宜之作法。 最後，本研究於第四章的部分進行了兩種權利於實體要件及救濟程序上之介紹與比較，指出問題所在並提出建議改革之方向，期得以對於我國人民資訊取得權之制度有所助益，並使我國資訊公開之法規範體系，其架構及內容更為完整且充實。

Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 'the claim for examining records“ and 'the claim for information disclosure' of the Freedom of Government Information Law, these two rights are the foundation for people to acquire information. This research focuses on the Administrative Procedure Act and the Freedom of Government Information Law, and discusses the basis of the conflicts between these two laws at the same time. The second chapter of this research is to understand the derivation for obtaining information as a background to figure out the meaning and purpose of examining records, and improve the accuracy of the wording in “the claim for examining records” from the history of the formulation of the current Administrative Procedure Act and the reasons for denying examining records. The continuation is to analyze the administrative rules and the judgments to sort out how to operate this system in practice, and put forward the arguments in this research that deserves to be endorsed or should be considered again. In the third chapter, this research is to elaborate the process of the original “the right to know“ initiated by various international organizations and representative countries, and to figure out the basis of this right in the Constitution. After understanding the legislative process of the Freedom of Government Information Law, this research also sorts out the administrative rules and the judgments, and interprets the opinions that the rights of the people have been fully or insufficiently protected, and express more appropriate insights. Finally, in the fourth chapter of this research, the two types of rights are introduced and compared in terms of substantive requirements and relief procedures. The problems are pointed out and the direction of reform is suggested in order to benefit the information disclosure legal system and make its structure and content more complete and substantial.