公益揭弊者保護法解讀、評論與風險   全文下載

Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act: Interpretation, Review, and Risks

本文從「適當的人員」將「弊案（妨礙公益的資訊／不法資訊）」，向「適當的組織／人員」為「適當的揭發」，則受到「適當的保護」這個架構，解讀及評論公益揭弊者保護法。這部立法關照到揭弊者、弊案、受理機關、程序與舉證標準、保護、救濟、問責等核心構面，是一部相對完整、可操作的制度設計。法律名稱冠以「公益」，提升這部法律的正當性及揭弊者的道德高度。然因為「揭弊者」與「弊案」的定義，存在「法定揭弊者、弊案」與「事實揭弊者、弊案」的落差，使部分基於誠信與公共利益揭發不法者，仍可能游離於法律保護之外。本文認為，即使聚焦在泛公部門組織弊案，凡對不法情事有事實可資之合理相信，並依法定程序向受理機關揭發／檢舉之任何人，均屬受保護之揭弊者。立法提供多元的揭弊管道及多重的保護措施，非常值得肯定。但法條結構層層嵌套，對一般人形成語言壁壘，可近性偏低。在實踐面，亦有心餘力絀之處，想要揭弊的人士，要有風險管控的意識。

This article analyzes and comments on the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act through a framework in which“appropriate person”discloses“wrongdoing”(i.e., conduct unlawful or detrimental to the public interest) to an“appropriate organization or authority”by means of an“appropriate disclosure,”thereby receiving“appropriate protection.”The Act encompasses key dimensions—whistleblower, wrongdoing, competent authority, procedures, evidentiary standards, protective measures, remedies, and accountability—making it a relatively comprehensive and practicable institutional design. By incorporating the term public interest into its title, the Act strengthens its normative legitimacy and enhances the moral standing of whistleblowers.
Nevertheless, the definitions of“whistleblower”and“wrongdoing”create potential gaps: de facto misconducts may be disclosed, yet the persons bringing them to light might not qualify for legal protection. Even when attention is confined to misconduct within the public sector, any person who reasonably believes that wrongdoing exists should, under statutory procedures, be permitted to report it to the competent authority -- without being limited to insiders of broadly defined public organizations.
The Act deserves credit for establishing multiple reporting channels and robust protective measures. Yet its intricate, heavily nested structure produces a linguistic barrier that diminishes public accessibility. From an implementation perspective, significant constraints remain. Prospective whistleblowers must be mindful of the Act’s limitations, aware of the risks inherent in disclosure, and employ prudent risk-management measures.