國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

公職人員利益衝突迴避法關係人權益之研究 = A Research on ...

何素娥

公職人員利益衝突迴避法關係人權益之研究 = A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest
作者:	何素娥,
其他團體作者:	國立高雄大學
出版地:	[高雄市]
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	2013[民102]
面頁冊數:	142面圖，表格 : 30公分;
標題:	利益衝突
標題:	Conflicts of Interests
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/76027068876086523236
附註:	參考書目：面117-122
附註:	102年10月31日公開
摘要註:	為促進廉能政治，端正政治風氣，建立公職人員利益衝突迴避規範，以有效遏止貪污腐化暨不當利益輸送，我國於2000年制定陽光法案－「公職人員利益衝突迴避法」。本法係為導正過去「肥水不落外人田」、「有關係好辦事」的通病，最終為了避免公職人員瓜田李下的行為衝擊人民對於公職人員廉潔操守及政府決策過程之信賴感。另一目的係為使公務人員在執行職務時，發現有利益衝突之虞，有指導原則可遵循，讓公務人員藉以判斷何者應為、何者不應為，何者可為，何者不可為。近年來有關公職人員利益衝突實務重要之裁罰案例主要以機關首長未迴避對其關係人有利的人事措施行為及未迴避與其關係人的交易行為兩大類。例如學校校長及地方鄉(鎮)市長，因其人事任用、聘用、僱用行為未迴避而遭裁罰；交易行為如政務次長「妹婿擔任負責人之公司」參與採購得標、縣議員「胞弟擔任負責人之營造廠」承攬採購工程、總統「胞姐擔任董事之公司」參與藥品採購等案，皆遭法務部鉅額裁罰。公職人員利益衝突迴避法施行10餘年以來，固然對我國政治清廉提供某些助力，然該法有關處罰公職人員關係人之爭議亦不斷，恐有侵害憲法保障人民財產權、工作權暨營業自由之虞。我國有關公務員迴避制度之規定散見於各種法律、法規命令及內部規則，其規範範圍、迴避之目的及違反之法律效果各不同，易產生灰色地帶，除社會大眾不清楚外，甚連公務人員也不甚瞭解，致在自律及監督上發揮不了作用。尤其在公職人員利益衝突迴避法，除了規範公職人員個人外，尚擴大至公職人員之關係人，對「關係人」工作權及營業自由之限制是否具合憲性？鑑此，產生了本文之研究動機。第二章開始，先從我國公職人員利益衝突迴避之法律現況做背景介紹，再就我國其他法律有關利益衝突之規範加以比較，而導出公職人員利益衝突迴避法特有之「關係人」規定。第三章為本論文之研究重點，由利益衝突處罰關係人作為達成目的手段之探討，是否有違憲法保障人民基本權之虞。第四章列舉幾個實務重要裁罰案例討論研析，發掘問題。最後，第五章就本法適用情形是否符合立法初衷，並就缺失及衍生之諸多爭議，試著提出解決方法或是具體修法建議供立法者參考。 In 2000, the Republic of China enacted a sunshine law, namely, the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflicts of Interests to promote uncorrupted and efficient politics and to well form political ethics by establishing norms to be followed by public officials for recusal due to conflicts of interest such that corruption and conveyance of unjust interests can be efficiently eliminated. This Act is to correct the problems that where it is convenient if there is any relationship or connection, and to prevent suspicious conduct of public officials from ruining confidence in integrity of the public officials and the decision-making process of the government. Also, this Act is to set up a guidance for public officials to determine what should and should not be done, and what can and what cannot be done in cases where there is a conflict of interest in the course of carrying out the duties of the public officials. In recent years, the punishment in relation to the conflicts of interests of the public officials can be divided into two types: the chief of the governmental agencies does not recues himself where the decisions on human resources are in favor of the related parties of that public official, and the transactions between the related parties and the public official. For instance, the president of the school and the mayor of the municipal governments and/or township were punished for not being recused in the decisions on engagement, hiring, and/or employment. For transactions, on the other hand, examples include the Department of Justice's major punishment for cases where the government bid winner in public procurement is a 'company whose legal representative is the brother in law of the Political Deputy Minister, the contractor is the construction company whose legal representative is the brother of the councilor or the medicine procurement proceeding where the company whose director is the sister of the President is involved. While the implementation of the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflicts of Interests over the last ten years has facilitated the transparency and integrity of the governments, it has been a subject of debate that the punishment of public officials may infringe upon the property rights, right of work and freedom of business. The recusal system for public officials is provided for under different laws, regulations, rules, and the scope, purpose, and the effect of violation thereof also vary, and therefore there may be some gray zone where it is unknown to the public and even the public officials so that such laws fail to serve the purpose of self-regulation and supervision. In particular, the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflict of Interest not only regulates individual public officials, but also apply to the parties related to the public official. Are such restrictions on the rights of work and freedom of business of the 'related parties' constitutional? This is the backdrop of this research. In Chapter 2, we begin with the introduction of the current status of the relevant laws in relation to the recusal of the public officials. It then compares these rules with other similar regulations governing the conflicts of interests and concludes that the 'related parties' are special arrangements under the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflict of Interest. Chapter 3 is the cornerstone among the chapters, which discusses whether the Act is inconsistent with the purpose of the protection of fundamental freedoms under the Constitution by way of the aim and purpose of the punishment of related parties due to conflicts of interests. Chapter 4 conducts several case studies in order to discover the relevant issues. Finally, Chapter 5 analyzes whether the implementation of this Act is consistent with its purpose and proposes solutions for the relevant downsides thereof or suggestion for legislators in relation to the amendment.

公職人員利益衝突迴避法關係人權益之研究 = A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest
何, 素娥

公職人員利益衝突迴避法關係人權益之研究 = A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest / 何素娥撰 - [高雄市] : 撰者, 2013[民102]. - 142面 ; 圖，表格 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面117-122102年10月31日公開.
利益衝突Conflicts of Interests

公職人員利益衝突迴避法關係人權益之研究 = A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest
LDR:07861nam0a2200289 450 001 389559
005 20170214090652.0
009 389559
010 0 $b 精裝
010 0 $b 平裝
100 $a 20170214d2013 k y0chiy05 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 公職人員利益衝突迴避法關係人權益之研究 $d A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest $z eng $f 何素娥撰
210 $a [高雄市] $c 撰者 $d 2013[民102]
215 0 $a 142面 $c 圖，表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面117-122
300 $a 102年10月31日公開
314 $a 指導教授：張永明博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班
330 $a 為促進廉能政治，端正政治風氣，建立公職人員利益衝突迴避規範，以有效遏止貪污腐化暨不當利益輸送，我國於2000年制定陽光法案－「公職人員利益衝突迴避法」。本法係為導正過去「肥水不落外人田」、「有關係好辦事」的通病，最終為了避免公職人員瓜田李下的行為衝擊人民對於公職人員廉潔操守及政府決策過程之信賴感。另一目的係為使公務人員在執行職務時，發現有利益衝突之虞，有指導原則可遵循，讓公務人員藉以判斷何者應為、何者不應為，何者可為，何者不可為。近年來有關公職人員利益衝突實務重要之裁罰案例主要以機關首長未迴避對其關係人有利的人事措施行為及未迴避與其關係人的交易行為兩大類。例如學校校長及地方鄉(鎮)市長，因其人事任用、聘用、僱用行為未迴避而遭裁罰；交易行為如政務次長「妹婿擔任負責人之公司」參與採購得標、縣議員「胞弟擔任負責人之營造廠」承攬採購工程、總統「胞姐擔任董事之公司」參與藥品採購等案，皆遭法務部鉅額裁罰。公職人員利益衝突迴避法施行10餘年以來，固然對我國政治清廉提供某些助力，然該法有關處罰公職人員關係人之爭議亦不斷，恐有侵害憲法保障人民財產權、工作權暨營業自由之虞。我國有關公務員迴避制度之規定散見於各種法律、法規命令及內部規則，其規範範圍、迴避之目的及違反之法律效果各不同，易產生灰色地帶，除社會大眾不清楚外，甚連公務人員也不甚瞭解，致在自律及監督上發揮不了作用。尤其在公職人員利益衝突迴避法，除了規範公職人員個人外，尚擴大至公職人員之關係人，對「關係人」工作權及營業自由之限制是否具合憲性？鑑此，產生了本文之研究動機。第二章開始，先從我國公職人員利益衝突迴避之法律現況做背景介紹，再就我國其他法律有關利益衝突之規範加以比較，而導出公職人員利益衝突迴避法特有之「關係人」規定。第三章為本論文之研究重點，由利益衝突處罰關係人作為達成目的手段之探討，是否有違憲法保障人民基本權之虞。第四章列舉幾個實務重要裁罰案例討論研析，發掘問題。最後，第五章就本法適用情形是否符合立法初衷，並就缺失及衍生之諸多爭議，試著提出解決方法或是具體修法建議供立法者參考。 In 2000, the Republic of China enacted a sunshine law, namely, the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflicts of Interests to promote uncorrupted and efficient politics and to well form political ethics by establishing norms to be followed by public officials for recusal due to conflicts of interest such that corruption and conveyance of unjust interests can be efficiently eliminated. This Act is to correct the problems that where it is convenient if there is any relationship or connection, and to prevent suspicious conduct of public officials from ruining confidence in integrity of the public officials and the decision-making process of the government. Also, this Act is to set up a guidance for public officials to determine what should and should not be done, and what can and what cannot be done in cases where there is a conflict of interest in the course of carrying out the duties of the public officials. In recent years, the punishment in relation to the conflicts of interests of the public officials can be divided into two types: the chief of the governmental agencies does not recues himself where the decisions on human resources are in favor of the related parties of that public official, and the transactions between the related parties and the public official. For instance, the president of the school and the mayor of the municipal governments and/or township were punished for not being recused in the decisions on engagement, hiring, and/or employment. For transactions, on the other hand, examples include the Department of Justice's major punishment for cases where the government bid winner in public procurement is a 'company whose legal representative is the brother in law of the Political Deputy Minister, the contractor is the construction company whose legal representative is the brother of the councilor or the medicine procurement proceeding where the company whose director is the sister of the President is involved. While the implementation of the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflicts of Interests over the last ten years has facilitated the transparency and integrity of the governments, it has been a subject of debate that the punishment of public officials may infringe upon the property rights, right of work and freedom of business. The recusal system for public officials is provided for under different laws, regulations, rules, and the scope, purpose, and the effect of violation thereof also vary, and therefore there may be some gray zone where it is unknown to the public and even the public officials so that such laws fail to serve the purpose of self-regulation and supervision. In particular, the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflict of Interest not only regulates individual public officials, but also apply to the parties related to the public official. Are such restrictions on the rights of work and freedom of business of the 'related parties' constitutional? This is the backdrop of this research. In Chapter 2, we begin with the introduction of the current status of the relevant laws in relation to the recusal of the public officials. It then compares these rules with other similar regulations governing the conflicts of interests and concludes that the 'related parties' are special arrangements under the Act on Recusal of Public Officials Due to Conflict of Interest. Chapter 3 is the cornerstone among the chapters, which discusses whether the Act is inconsistent with the purpose of the protection of fundamental freedoms under the Constitution by way of the aim and purpose of the punishment of related parties due to conflicts of interests. Chapter 4 conducts several case studies in order to discover the relevant issues. Finally, Chapter 5 analyzes whether the implementation of this Act is consistent with its purpose and proposes solutions for the relevant downsides thereof or suggestion for legislators in relation to the amendment.
510 1 $a A Research on the Rights of the Related Party Defined in the Act on Recusal of Public Officials due to Conflicts of Interest $z eng
610 0 $a 利益衝突 $a 迴避 $a 公職人員 $a 陽光法案 $a 交易行為
610 1 $a Conflicts of Interests $a Recusal $a Public Officials $a Sunshine Law $a Transaction
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 380101 2154 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 何 $b 素娥 $4 撰 $3 614433
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 法律學系碩士班 $3 166036
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20131004 $g CCR
856 7 $z 電子資源 $2 http $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/76027068876086523236