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

地方議會自律權與行政、司法權互動實務之運作分析 = An Analyti...

國立高雄大學政治法律學系碩士班

地方議會自律權與行政、司法權互動實務之運作分析 = An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council : 以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council
副題名:	以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例
作者:	王文華,
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:	255面圖，表格 : 30公分;
標題:	地方議會自律權
標題:	council self-discipline power
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/97922849321778544882
附註:	參考書目：面126-131
附註:	102年10月31日公開
其他題名:	以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例
摘要註:	摘要地方議會自律權係指地方議會行使立法權及其他法定權限時，不受其他國家機關介入或干預，而擁有之自主決定權者。地方議員之言論免責權一方面係對議員個人之保障，他方面亦係議會維持自主存在之基礎，構成議會自律權之一環。議會自律權並非目的性的價值，而只是確保議會健全運作的手段性權力，因而在運作過程中就難免受到行政權及司法權的介入。本文舉高雄市議會議員選舉議長、副議長亮票案為例，分析地方議會自律權在實務運作過程中為行政及司法權介入或侵越之現象，並提出解決建議。鑒於2010年高雄市議會議員選舉正、副議長，時任之66名議員全部遭檢調偵辦，代表行政權之檢察官對議員起訴或緩起訴理由顯無將「議會自律權」納入思考，其所憑證據乃是市警局提供之市議員投票過程錄影內容併其翻拍照片及依此內容製作之勘驗筆錄。就此，本文首先探討地方議員選舉議長、副議長之亮票行為是否違反刑事規範﹖其次，再分析亮票行為是否屬議會自律權範圍﹖本文第三章則探討警察未得議會同意之錄影，是否屬違背法定程序取得之證據，該證據是否適用證據排除法則﹖依大法官435號解釋意旨，行政及司法權得於一定條件下介入議會內部事務，第四章即探討行政及司法權介入議會內部事務之界限。本文認為議員之亮票行為無刑法第132條之適用；再者，亮票行為係屬「與執行職務有關」之言論或表決，當在言論免責權保障之範圍內，偵審機關應尊重議會本身之判斷，不宜主動介入偵查審判，以避免破壞權力分立之憲法原則。 AbstractLocal council self-discipline power refers to the discretionary power a local council enjoyswhen exerting legislative power or other regulatory powers without any intervention fromnational/government agencies. The privilege of speech bestowed on a councilor is not onlyaimed to protect councilors, but is a way to maintain the automated existence of a council, so asto ultimately preserve its self-discipline power. Council self-discipline power is not a value initself, but an expediency to ensure the well-functioning of a council. In reality, administrativepower and judicial power may get in to interrupt the exertion of council self-discipline power.This paper cites an example from a vote-displaying case occurred in Kaohsiung City Councilwhen electing its Speaker and Deputy Speaker before analyzing how the council’sself-discipline power is intervened by administrative and judicial power, and offeringsuggestions to solving this issue.The fact that the 66 councilors were all listed as interested parties and interrogated by theprosecution for the election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker in 2010 indicates that the prosecutor(exerting administrative power) did not take the council self-discipline power into considerationwhen making indictment or deferred prosecution. All the evidence the prosecution grasped is avideo clip of the voting process provided by the municipal police authorities and aninvestigation record based on the video content. Thereupon, this paper first explores ifvote-displaying behavior is against criminal regulations. Secondly, we analyze if thisvote-displaying behavior shall be part of the council self-discipline power. Chapter 3 scrutinizeswhether the camera recording (non-approved by the council) can be viewed as being againstlawful procedures and if such evidence is applicable to exclusionary rule of evidence. Accordingto the gist of Grand Justice Interpretation #435, administrative power and judicial power canintervene in the internal affairs of a council under certain circumstances. Chapter 4 explores thelimitations for the intervention of administrative and judicial power into council affairs. Theauthor thinks this vote-displaying behavior is not applicable to Art. 132 of the Criminal Code.Furthermore, vote-displaying behavior shall be within the right of speech that is relating to acouncilor’s job execution, and is therefore part of privilege of speech. The investigation andprosecution authorities should respect the judgment of the council without active intervention,so as not to damage the principle of the “separation of powers” stipulated by the Constitution

地方議會自律權與行政、司法權互動實務之運作分析 = An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council : 以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例
王, 文華

地方議會自律權與行政、司法權互動實務之運作分析 = An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council : 以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例 / 王文華撰 - [高雄市] : 撰者, 2013[民102]. - 255面 ; 圖，表格 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面126-131102年10月31日公開.
地方議會自律權council self-discipline power

地方議會自律權與行政、司法權互動實務之運作分析 = An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council : 以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例
LDR:06123nam0a2200301 450 001 389582
005 20170214092710.0
009 389582
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 地方議會自律權與行政、司法權互動實務之運作分析 $e 以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例 $d An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council $z eng $f 王文華撰
210 $a [高雄市] $c 撰者 $d 2013[民102]
215 0 $a 255面 $c 圖，表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面126-131
300 $a 102年10月31日公開
314 $a 指導教授：廖義銘博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學政治法律學系碩士班
330 $a 摘要地方議會自律權係指地方議會行使立法權及其他法定權限時，不受其他國家機關介入或干預，而擁有之自主決定權者。地方議員之言論免責權一方面係對議員個人之保障，他方面亦係議會維持自主存在之基礎，構成議會自律權之一環。議會自律權並非目的性的價值，而只是確保議會健全運作的手段性權力，因而在運作過程中就難免受到行政權及司法權的介入。本文舉高雄市議會議員選舉議長、副議長亮票案為例，分析地方議會自律權在實務運作過程中為行政及司法權介入或侵越之現象，並提出解決建議。鑒於2010年高雄市議會議員選舉正、副議長，時任之66名議員全部遭檢調偵辦，代表行政權之檢察官對議員起訴或緩起訴理由顯無將「議會自律權」納入思考，其所憑證據乃是市警局提供之市議員投票過程錄影內容併其翻拍照片及依此內容製作之勘驗筆錄。就此，本文首先探討地方議員選舉議長、副議長之亮票行為是否違反刑事規範﹖其次，再分析亮票行為是否屬議會自律權範圍﹖本文第三章則探討警察未得議會同意之錄影，是否屬違背法定程序取得之證據，該證據是否適用證據排除法則﹖依大法官435號解釋意旨，行政及司法權得於一定條件下介入議會內部事務，第四章即探討行政及司法權介入議會內部事務之界限。本文認為議員之亮票行為無刑法第132條之適用；再者，亮票行為係屬「與執行職務有關」之言論或表決，當在言論免責權保障之範圍內，偵審機關應尊重議會本身之判斷，不宜主動介入偵查審判，以避免破壞權力分立之憲法原則。 AbstractLocal council self-discipline power refers to the discretionary power a local council enjoyswhen exerting legislative power or other regulatory powers without any intervention fromnational/government agencies. The privilege of speech bestowed on a councilor is not onlyaimed to protect councilors, but is a way to maintain the automated existence of a council, so asto ultimately preserve its self-discipline power. Council self-discipline power is not a value initself, but an expediency to ensure the well-functioning of a council. In reality, administrativepower and judicial power may get in to interrupt the exertion of council self-discipline power.This paper cites an example from a vote-displaying case occurred in Kaohsiung City Councilwhen electing its Speaker and Deputy Speaker before analyzing how the council’sself-discipline power is intervened by administrative and judicial power, and offeringsuggestions to solving this issue.The fact that the 66 councilors were all listed as interested parties and interrogated by theprosecution for the election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker in 2010 indicates that the prosecutor(exerting administrative power) did not take the council self-discipline power into considerationwhen making indictment or deferred prosecution. All the evidence the prosecution grasped is avideo clip of the voting process provided by the municipal police authorities and aninvestigation record based on the video content. Thereupon, this paper first explores ifvote-displaying behavior is against criminal regulations. Secondly, we analyze if thisvote-displaying behavior shall be part of the council self-discipline power. Chapter 3 scrutinizeswhether the camera recording (non-approved by the council) can be viewed as being againstlawful procedures and if such evidence is applicable to exclusionary rule of evidence. Accordingto the gist of Grand Justice Interpretation #435, administrative power and judicial power canintervene in the internal affairs of a council under certain circumstances. Chapter 4 explores thelimitations for the intervention of administrative and judicial power into council affairs. Theauthor thinks this vote-displaying behavior is not applicable to Art. 132 of the Criminal Code.Furthermore, vote-displaying behavior shall be within the right of speech that is relating to acouncilor’s job execution, and is therefore part of privilege of speech. The investigation andprosecution authorities should respect the judgment of the council without active intervention,so as not to damage the principle of the “separation of powers” stipulated by the Constitution
510 1 $a An Analytical Study of the Practical Interaction Between the Powers of Local Council’s Autonomy and the Executive and Judicial Branches—Based on the Vote-displaying Case of Speaker and Deputy Speaker Election in Kaohsiung City Council $z eng
517 1 $a 以高雄市議會議員選舉正副議長亮票案為例 $z chi
610 0 $a 地方議會自律權 $a 言論免責權 $a 亮票 $a 證據排除 $a 刑法第132條 $a 權力分立
610 1 $a council self-discipline power $a privilege of speech $a vote-displaying
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 382101 1004 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 王 $b 文華 $4 撰 $3 11247
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 政治法律學系碩士班 $3 166052
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20131008 $g CCR
856 7 $z 電子資源 $2 http $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/97922849321778544882