論行政調查實務中的衝突與矛盾：以協力義務與舉證責任為中心

Conflicts and Contradictions in Administrative Investigation Practice: A Focus on Duty to Cooperate and Burden of Proof

行政機關為實現公共利益，需透過行政調查蒐集證據、查明事實，進而作成行政處分。然而，現行行政調查實務中存有許多爭議，包括初步印象（prima facie）運用標準不明、協力義務範圍過度擴張，以及舉證責任倒置等問題，導致程序正當性與基本權利保障受到挑戰。特別是行政機關在證據尚未完備或未經充分驗證的情況下，基於初步印象作成行政處分，可能導致「無證據不得裁罰」之正當法律程序被虛化，以及侵害接受調查當事人的「無責推定」保障。
本文從法治國原則與程序正義的視角出發，剖析行政調查實務中的核心矛盾，並聚焦於初步印象的濫用及協力義務的扭曲，探討其對行政處分正當性的影響。同時，本文提出包括明確初步印象與證據標準、比例原則下的協力義務適用及程序正義落實等改革建議，期望在提升行政效率的同時，實現實質公平正義，並為行政調查法制的完善提供理論支持與實務參考。

To realize the public interest, administrative agencies must gather evidence and ascertain facts through administrative investigations as a prerequisite for rendering administrative dispositions. However, current administrative investigation practices are fraught with controversy. Key issues include the ambiguous standards for applying prima facie evidence, the excessive expansion of the duty to cooperate, and the reversal of the burden of proof. These issues pose significant challenges to procedural legitimacy and the protection of fundamental rights. In particular, when administrative agencies render dispositions based solely on prima facie impressions—without complete or fully verified evidence—they risk eroding the due process requirement of“no penalty without evidence”and infringing upon the investigated party's right to the presumption of non-liability.
From the perspectives of the rule of law and procedural justice, this article analyzes the core contradictions within administrative investigation practices. It focuses on the abuse of prima facie determinations and the distortion of the duty to cooperate, examining their impact on the legitimacy of administrative dispositions. Furthermore, this article proposes reform measures, including clarifying evident iary standards for prima facie cases, applying the duty to cooperate in accordance with the principle of proportionality, and ensuring the realization of procedural justice. The aim is to achieve substantive justice while enhancing administrative efficiency, thereby providing theoretical support and practical reference for refining the legal regime of administrative investigations.