| 摘要註: |
行政中立是民主轉型以來社會對行政部門所發出的強烈要求，每次選舉，軍隊是否嚴守行政中立倍受質疑。本文從理論、法制及實務面向討論軍人行政中立在民主政治運作之意義及其必要性。軍人行政中立消極意義在防止軍人因為自利，成為政黨政治公平競爭的破壞者；積極的意義則是避免政治上司動用軍事資源為非，損及公共利益及大眾參與的民主制度，守護憲法公平正義的精神。軍人行政中立的內容除依法行政、執行公正外，尚包含軍人不應出任文人職務、不參與涉黨派性之事務及軍事專業能力與倫理等。 實踐軍人行政中立，需要軍人、文人、政黨及公民等社群成員的共識、守法（適當限制及保護政治活動）與節制，更需要媒體及社會大眾對上開社群適時的監督。憲法第138條、第139條雖然預設軍隊國家化、軍人超然於政治的目標，為公益需要得依憲法23條之規定採取必要措施限制之，惟仍需經明確的法律程序，並符合比例原則，即公務員與國家的權利義務關係，仍是在法律保留原則下進行，以符合法治國保障人權之要求。最後，以類型化的方式呈現社會對軍人不中立的批評，發現影響軍人行政中立的因素可以歸納以下六項：政黨惡質競爭、政治人物權力濫用、媒體擴大渲染、執政權力弱勢結構、軍人價值觀扭曲及軍人政治敏感性與回應性不足，並藉以檢驗現行法規範缺漏與不足之處。本研究並建議：訂定軍人專屬之行政中立法制，明訂行為違法之構成要件，法律效果應依職責程度及所具影響力作不同之規範，將行政機關之軍職人員排除公務人員行政中立法之適用；軍人言論自由範圍應予適當規範；立法限制政黨要求現役軍人貫徹黨意志及參與集會活動的不當行為；參酌美軍訂頒之投票協助計畫，訂定保障軍人投票及聽取政見權利之規範。 Since the democratic transition, the public has severely demanded administrative neutrality on the government administration system. Whether the army strictly abides by administrative neutrality has been challenged during each election campaign. This article presents a discussion on the significance and essentials on military official’s administrative neutrality within a democratic political system from theoretical, legislative and practical aspects. The negative meaning of military official’s neutrality is to prevent the military authority from impairing the fairness of political competition for its own interests; the positive meaning is to avoid the politician’s wrong-doing using military authority resources to intimidate public interests and participation in the democratic system, and to safe guard the constitutional fairness and justice. Military administrative neutrality includes: governance by law, unbiased execution, no civilian appointment for military officials, no involvement in partisan matters, and militarily professionalism and ethics etc. To fulfill military administrative neutrality requires consensus of the members of community, civilian, military, and political parties to abide by the law (due restrictions and protections of political activities) and abstinence, it also needs the media and the public’s constant surveillances. Article 138, 139 of The Constitution stipulates the goal for nationalization of the armed forces and administrative neutrality. For common good, it can take the necessary measures to limit military officials in accordance with Article 23. Yet still it needs clear legal procedures, in line with the principle of proportionality, that is, the rights and obligations relationship between civil service and the State, is conducted under the reservation of the law, and comply with the principle of human rights protection. Finally, the public criticisms on factors influencing military being not neutral can be summarized into following six categories: political parties malicious competition, politicians abuse of power, media exaggeration, the weakness of ruling power, military officials distortion on sense of value, and lack of political sensitivity and responsiveness. Accordingly, the shortcomings and flaws in the current law and legislative system are apprised and concluded with recommendations as follows: To establish dedicated legislation on military administrative neutrality, stipulating essential offense elements for violation of the law, with legal consequences tied to the duty and influential level of the offending officials; To exclude military officials serving in civic institutions from the adoption of Public Servants Administrative Neutrality Act; To restraint the freedom of expression of military officials; To limit partisans, in legislative regulations, from commanding military officials implementing the parties’ ideas and wills and participations in political activities; And to legislatively stipulate, with reference to the US Army's promulgate just right for voting assistance program, protection of military officials voting right and rights to listen to political views. |