人事行政程序中證據法則之運用──以保障事件之事實、證據調查為重心

Research of the Rule of Evidence for Personnel Administrative Procedures – Focus on Inquiry of Facts and Evidences

依大法官釋字第234 號解釋，復審程序相當於訴願程序，而訴願法第67 條明文規定採取職權調查主義，依據該規定，受理訴願機關負有職權調查之義務，然而，公務人員保障法第56 條第1 項規定，保訓會必要時，得依職權或依復審人之申請，命文書或其他物件之持有人提出該物件，並得留置之。第57 條第1 項規定，保訓會必要時，得依職權或囑託有關機關、學校、團體或具專門知識經驗者，就必要之物件、證據，實施檢驗、勘驗或鑑定。條文用語為「得」，則保訓會是否如同訴願機關般，負有職權調查義務，不無疑義。若依保訓會之見解，似乎傾向民事訴訟之當事人提出主義，此見解是否正確，且與訴願實務之見解相同，而符合功能相當原則，亦有探討之必要。

According to the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 243, The Re-appeal Procedures are equivalent to the Administrative Appeal Procedures. And the Administrative Appeal Act article 67 provides the principle of ex officio investigation that the administrative agencies have the obligation of administrative authority investigation. However, the Civil Service Protection Act(CSPA) article 56 section 1 also provides that“the CSPTS may, ex officio or by the petitioner’s request, command the holders of the document or other item to present or take custody of such document or item if necessary”; Act article 56 section 1 provides that “the CSPTC may, ex officio, or entrust relevant agency, school, group or expert to, conduct investigation, test or inspection on necessary evidence or items if necessary.” According to the term“may”used in the article, an issue thus appear that whether the CSPTS should have the obligation of administrative authority investigation as the administrative agencies do. The opinion of the CSPTS seems to bear a resemblance to the doctrine of party propose in civil procedures. However, further discussion must be made that whether this opinion is correct and whether does the application of this opinion meet the practice in Administrative Appeal Procedures so as to conform to the doctrine of efficacy.