中科三期環評訴訟中行政與司法的互動

Abstract

本研究關注中科三期環評訴訟中行政與司法的互動，主要的研究問題是探究行政系統如何回應司法判決？從而分析司法判決對於行政系統產生什麼影響？綜觀中科三期環評爭議，隨著后里農民提起行政訴訟，讓行政與司法間的攻防與角力就此展開。最高行政法院於2010年判決撤銷中科三期環評結論確定，然而科學園區的開發早已如火如荼展開，面對廠商營運、量產在即，但開發行為的合法性基礎卻被撤銷，迫使行政系統必須做出因應。然而，行政系統並未遵守司法判決「依法行政」，反而持續以「選擇性的作為與不作為」來抵抗司法。\n\n從行政系統的因應可發現儘管行政權強力抗拒司法，但顧及政策必須持續推行，所以實際上亦不可能完全無視判決指摘，仍必須做出「行為上的調整」，包含：重啟環評、加速通過環評，或者又重新決議要進行二階環評等。顯示面對司法審查的進逼迫使其必須「繞道而行」。後續儘管法院再裁定中科三期應停工，行政系統仍未就範，而修修補補、只做半套的環評，不僅仍無法通過法院合法性的檢驗，也致使中科三期演變成「邊施工、邊營運、邊環評」的窘況。本研究主要採取的研究方法包含：次級資料分析、參與觀察、訪談法。\n\n總結而言，本研究將指出行政系統的態度與偏好是司法判決能否落實的關鍵。相反的，司法則沒有什麼權力影響判決如何被執行。然而，儘管司法顯露出侷限性，始終未能有效牽制住中科三期的開發，但中科三期環評訴訟對於行政系統仍產生相當的衝擊與影響，不論是對環評制度實務或對於往後環境運動的發展，這場運動仍是有深遠影響的一股動能。

As more and more administrative litigations were filed, tensions between the executive and the judiciary branch have been on the rise. By using the environmental impact assessment (EIA) litigation of the 3rd phase expansion of Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP) as a case study, this paper aims to understand the dynamic interaction between these two branches of the state. Particularly, it aims to shed light on how the executive reacts to judicial decisions, and whether judicial review influences bureaucratic practices and if so, its means and the extent of its impact.\n\nAccording to the separation of powers principle, the main function of judicial review is to monitor the legal reach of the executive power. Even as one of the landmark cases in Taiwanese legal history, however, it had been observed that not all judicial decisions are implemented by government agencies following the EIA litigation. Despite the fact that the conclusion of the EIA had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court, the executive resisted this judicial decision by being selective in its enforcement. Nevertheless, the executive must still respond to the judiciary albeit with some “behavioural adjustments” in order to make sure that the development of the 3rd phase expansion of CTSP can be completed as soon as possible. \n\nResearch methods adopted in this paper is mainly literature review, participant observation and in-depth interview. This case study reveals three major findings. First, the enforcement of judicial decisions is not necessarily obligatory and hinges on the attitudes of the executive. Secondly, the judiciary has very limited powers when it comes to effecting the enforcement of its decisions but its decisions do engender some observable changes (or non-changes) in bureaucratic behaviour which can be attributed to judicial review. Thirdly, although these verdicts failed to stop the abuse of power and allowed the fulfillment of rights, for local residents, cause lawyers, and NGOs, there are still many positive lessons to be taken away from their efforts from which future environmental movements will also likely benefit.