摘要: | 本論文重點在探討國家對地方自治團體立法權和行政權之監督界限。 現行地方制度法第26條及30條對地方自治團體立法權之監督規定,侵害地方自治團體之自治權,應屬違憲而有修正之必要。修正之方向應(一)縮小或廢除事前行政監督之規定。(二)應將行政直接干涉的手段改為請求司法機關許可後始能對地方自治團體行使監督的模式,尤其發生中央與地方自治法規衝突疑義時,應允許認為有疑義之一方提起規範審查訴訟,以判定自治法規之是否有效,而不應如現行法之規定,由中央行政機關直接認定而函告無效。 現行地方制度法第75條、第76條對地方自治團體自治行政權之監督規定,侵害了地方自治團體之自治權,應予調整。調整的方法: (一) 建立自治監督法律保留原則;即中央沒有法律之依據,不得對地方自治團體為監督措施,違反者無效。 (二) 對於自治事項和委辦事項的監督手段,應予區別。對自治事項只能為建議、請求提出資料或要求改善等非干預性措施;對委辦事項始可為同意、許可、認可、指示或代執行等干預性之措施。現行法自治事項只能為合法性監督,委辦事項能作合法性及適當性監督的區分方法並不明確,應予修正。 (三) 代行處理制度應予修正並引進司法審查機制。 1、 對於自治事項,不應有代履行制度之存在,否則即侵害地方自治團體之自治權。 2、 委辦事項當地方自治團體怠於履行,中央必須經法定程序命履行仍不履行時,中央才能訴請法院請求判決命地方自治團體履行,由中立之司法介入,以調和中央監督之實效性和地方自治團體行政之獨立性。 (四) 建立監督之程序機制及遭監督侵害時之司法救濟體系。 1、 應訂立中央對地方實施監督時所必須遵守的正當法律程序,以防監督之恣意。 2、 中央對於自治事項或委辦事項之監督措施都應屬於行政處分,而得由受監督之自治團體提起行政爭訟,以確保地方自治團體自治權之完整。 This thesis focuses on exploring the supervision boundaries of nation toward the legislative and executive powers of local self-governing bodies. Currently, the Local Government Act Articles 26 and 30, which supervise regulations on the legislative power of local self-governing bodies, have infringed on the autonomy of local self-governing bodies. Both articles are unconstitutional and should be corrected immediately. Amendment of these articles should take place according to the following two methods: One should reduce or repeal the regulations of the prior administrative supervision. The other should change the executive branch’s ability to directly interfere to requiring it to ask for judiciary permission to exercise supervision over local self-governing bodies—particularly contradictions and doubts concerning the central government and local self-government ordinances or regulations—and the party that has expressed doubt should be allowed to review the litigation. Finally, the executive branch should determine whether the self-government ordinance is valid, instead of the existing law and then notify the relevant central authorities in writing that the regulations have become invalid. Articles 75 and 76 of the current Local Government Act have infringed on the power and autonomy of self-governing bodies and should be modified by one or more of the following methods: (A) Establishing retentive principles concerning the autonomy supervision law; in other words, prohibiting the central government from supervising local self-governing bodies. The current principles in the Local Government Act that permit this must be repealed. (B) Supervision measures of self-government matters and commissioned matters should be clearly defined. For self-government matters, they can only be recommendations and requests for information or requirements to improve and so on, which are non-intervention measures; for commissioned matters, they can take the form of intervention measures such as consent, permission, recognition, direction or acting as proxy. However, the self-government matters in the existing law can only be interpreted as illegal legitimization of the central government’s supervision of local self-governing bodies, and the commissioned matters are unclear as to legitimacy and appropriate supervision levels; these too must be corrected. (C) The current proxy system should be amended and a mechanism of judicial review should be introduced. 1. For self-government matters, a proxy system should not exist, or at minimum it must not infringe on the autonomy of self-governing bodies. 2. In the event that self-governing bodies fail to act upon commissioned matters, the relevant central authorities have to take appropriate action through legal procedures; however, in the event of continuous inaction on the part of the self-governing bodies beyond the specified period, the relevant central authorities can petition the court to instruct self-governing bodies to carry out the commissioned matters. Neutral judicial intervention can reconcile conflicts between the effectiveness of central government supervision and the administrative independence of self-governing bodies. (D) To establish procedural mechanisms of supervision and a judicial remedy system for self-governing bodies that have been infringed upon through the central government’s supervision. 1. Legal procedures should be established when the central government implements supervision that infringes upon self-governing bodies’ right to autonomy and self-supervision. 2. Central government supervision of self-government matters or commissioned matters should be of an administrative nature only, and self-governing bodies that are supervised can enter into administrative litigation to ensure the integrity of their self-governing autonomy. |