公務人員利益衝突迴避法制及實務之研究

Abstract

我國公務人員所適用之利益衝突迴避法規，除「公職人員利益衝突迴避法」堪稱係為該法適用對象「公職人員」所訂定之專法外，其餘法規諸如政府採購法、公務人員任用法等亦多定有相關迴避規範；惟因各該法規涵攝之業務性質不同，迴避之目的、範圍與違反之法律效果亦各有不同，不但造成公務人員就利益衝突迴避內容產生認知上之困擾，也動搖全體國民對於迴避規範法秩序架構之信心。因此，將利益衝突迴避法制加以系統化之分析，並輔以行政函釋及司法實務等邏輯實證研究，成為深入瞭解整體利益衝突制度之一項重要工作。\n本研究嘗試以公職人員利益衝突迴避法、政府採購法、公務人員任用法等三項法律規範中之迴避概念為基礎，並以各該規範於實務上產生適用疑義之案例出發，先進行規範面之適用對象及其構成要件的分析比較，並輔以主管機關就上揭法律共計100件函釋之對應分析，再以68案司法訴訟之相關判決內容以及政策利害關係人於訴訟上之攻防理由為標的，進行個案分析研究，最後結合司法院大法官釋字第716號解釋所闡明之意旨，並引述主管機關近期提出之修法草案內容以為對照，以實務運作及宏觀視野，探索現行法規之窒礙或修法草案仍未臻完備之處。最後綜整提出相關涉及「法令面」及「執行面」之研究觀點，以及分別對於「實務執行」、「規範制定」、「後續研究」等三方面之心得建議，期成為相關法律適用者之參考，或成為未來之規範修正方向。

In Taiwan, the laws for civil servants regarding recusal due to conflicts of interest include the Act on Recusal of Public Servants Due to Conflicts of Interest, which is designated specifically for public servants, as well as the Government Procurement Act and Civil Service Employment Act, both of which contain recusal-related regulations. However, because these acts feature distinct characteristics, varying recusal purposes and scope, and different violation effects, this engendered differences among the cognition of civil servants regarding recusal due to conflicts of interest and lowered the confidence that Taiwanese citizens have toward the structure of recusal regulations. Therefore, systematically analyzing regulations on recusal due to conflicts of interests and reviewing logical empirical research on administrative letters and judicial practices are crucial tasks for determining the overall conflicts of interest system.\nThis study adopted the concept of recusal from the Act on Recusal of Public Servants Due to Conflicts of Interest, Government Procurement Act, and Civil Service Employment Act as a basis. In addition, we employed cases concerning the doubts of whether the specifications of these acts are applicable in practice to analyze and compare the applicable subjects and the constituents of these specifications. We conducted case studies based on the following: analyses of 100 letters provided by competent authorities, the assessment of 68 judicial litigations, and the offense and defense strategies adopted by policy stakeholders during a litigation. Finally, the intention elaborated in the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 716 was integrated, and the amendment draft recently proposed by competent authorities was referenced to examine the obstacles hindering existing laws and deficiencies in the amendment drafts from practical and macro-level perspectives. Consequently, we proposed research perspectives related to the dimensions of regulation and execution as well as suggestions regarding practical applications, specification formulation, and subsequent research as a reference for relevant individuals and for modifying future legal regulations.