公務員言論自由之保障及其限制標準之研究 - 政大學術集成
267
0
0
全文
(2) 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.
(3) 謝謝在成長過程中的每一個階段，給予幫助的師長與朋友， 謝謝家人對我的包容和支持。. 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.
(4) 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.
(5) 大 綱 80 年代，我國在解嚴之時，民主化運動與言論自由的保障相得益彰，幾乎同 一時期，司法院大法官作成釋字第 187 號解釋，對於特別權力關係敲響第一記警 鐘，大法官逐步正視特別權力關係理論對於權利保障與憲政制度的影響，在司法 實踐上似乎邁向突破特別權力關係理論長久以來的桎梏。然探其實際，在大法官 與學者相繼對於特別權力關係理論加以解構後，公務員仍未能如同民主化後的一 般人民一樣享有「充分且必要」的言論自由。 在面對公務員言論爭議的案件中，我國現行法制透過概括的職務義務對於公. 治 政 與一般人民相同的言論自由，就公務員言論應有的界限與限制的標準，也未建立 大 立 可茲遵循的審查原則。造成此一現象的原因或許在於特別權力關係尚未真正地被. 務員言論自由施加限制。在具體個案的審查中，實務上顯然並不認為公務員享有. ‧ 國. 學. 揚棄，學者與實務對於公務員「有權利即有救濟」的闡述，過於囿限於「服公職 權」，並且在檢討、揚棄特別權力關係的過程中，仍停留在形式法治國的概念，. Nat. y. ‧. 忽略了基本權利實質限制的檢討。. sit. 本文借鏡美國法制的發展，嘗試為我國公務員言論自由的審查提出基本原則。. al. er. io. 在衡量公務員言論自由保障時，應考量「公務員言論的類型」與「公務員的職務. n. v i n Ch 素，衡酌公務員言論對於政府制度目的的影響。在此一審查模型下，並非所有的 engchi U 內容」，並以「言論表達的時間與地點」與「言論的公開程度」作為輔助判斷因. 公務員言論皆受到一致的限制。 法哲學家 Dworkin 教授曾經說過，在言論自由的困難案件中，法律人必然需 要釐清「憲法為何保障言論自由」這個根本性的問題，才能決定言論自由的困難 案件應該如何解決。期待本文的觀察建議可以使得實務在審查公務員言論自由的 案件時，意識到公務員言論可能具有的公益面向—使政府資訊自由地流向公眾， 促進政府課責與民主審議—從而能夠適當的權衡相關利益，賦予公務員言論應有 的保障。 關鍵字：特別權力關係、公務員言論、特權理論、違憲條件禁止原則、新財產權、 職務言論、匿名言論.
(6) 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.
(7) Abstract In the 1980s, as the Martial law was lifted, the level of freedom of speech enjoyed by the people was increased alongside with Taiwan’s democratization movement. In the same period, the Constitutional Court rendered the landmark Interpretation No.187 against the theory of special power relation (besonderes Gewaltverhaltnis, the Theory). The Court was concerned with the negative effect of the Theory on constitutionally protected rights and liberties. However, even though the Court had since made several similar interpretations and seemed to gradually move toward abandoning the Theory entirely, Taiwan’s public employees have not yet been able to enjoy the same level of. 政 治 大. freedom of speech as the general public has.. 立. Under the current legal system, civil servants’ freedom of speech was restricted by. ‧ 國. 學. broad and generalized professional duties specified in the Public Functionary Service Act. In addition, courts do not take the view that public employees and the general. ‧. public enjoy the same level of freedom of expression, and do not establish a clear. sit. y. Nat. principle to determine what public employees can or cannot speak. Perhaps it is because. io. er. the Theory has lingered on. Or it is because in the process of abandoning the Theory, courts have paid too much attention on the right to holding public offices and ignored. n. al. Ch. other rights, such as the right to free speech.. engchi. i n U. v. Learning from the public employee speech jurisprudence in the United States, this thesis tries to articulate some basic principles when reviewing cases concerning civil servants’ freedom of speech. This thesis believes that not all public employee speech should be restricted and suppressed. In deciding whether to protect civil servants’ freedom of expression, courts should consider two main factors: “the type of the speech involved” and “the responsibilities of the civil servant’s position.” In addition, factors such as “the time and place of the speech” and “degree of openness of the speech” should also be taken into account when deciding whether public employee speech has negative impact on the government in fulfilling its responsibilities..
(8) Professor Ronald Dworkin, an American legal philosopher, once remarked that in hard cases, “lawyers and judges must try to find a political justification of the First Amendment that fits most past constitutional practice and also provides a compelling reason why we should grant freedom of speech.” The thesis hopes that the observation and suggestion made in this research can help courts be aware of the public interests in protecting public employees’ freedom of speech—ensuring free flow of information from the government to the public and improving government accountability and democratic deliberation. Then can the courts better balance the relevant interests and. 政 治 大. ultimately afford proper protection to public employee speech.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Key words：besonderes Gewaltverhaltnis (Special Power Relation), Public Employee Speech, The Doctrine of Privilege, Unconstitutional Conditions, The New. ‧. Property, Official Duty Speech, Anonymous Speech. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.
(9) 目錄 簡目. 第一章 緒論 ..................................................................................... 1 第一節 問題意識.................................................................................................. 1 第一項 研究動機 ··································································· 1. 政 治 大 研究方法與研究限制............................................................................ 7 立. 第二項 問題的提出 ······························································ 4 第二節. ‧ 國. 學. 第一項 研究方法 ································································· 7 第二項 研究範圍與研究限制 ·················································· 8. ‧. 第三節 研究架構................................................................................................ 14. io. sit. y. Nat. er. 第二章 我國公務員言論自由保障的困境與爭議 ....................... 17. al. n. v i n 從特別權力關係理論變遷觀察公務員權利保障的嬗變.................. 17 Ch engchi U. 第一節. 第一項 特別權力關係理論的繼受與桎梏 ··································17 第二項 以司法院大法官解釋作為觀察路徑 ·······························20 第三項 公務員基本權利的意識與契機 ·····································22 第二節 我國公務員言論自由限制案例的審查實務...................................... 28 第一項 實務運作現況的檢視 ·················································29 第二項 現行實務作法的爭議與檢討 ········································51 第三節 小結...................................................................................................... 65 I.
(10) 第三章 公務員言論自由限制案件的審查及其發展─以美國法為借鏡 ........................................................................................... 67 第一節 特權理論的變遷與公務員言論自由的消長...................................... 67 第一項 特權理論支配下的公務員關係 ·····································67 第二項 違憲條件(unconstitutional conditions)禁止原則的發展與公務員 權利的保障·····························································73 第二節 美國聯邦最高法院對於公務員言論限制審查模式的發展.............. 78. 政 治 大. 第一項 Pickering 審查模式的建立 ···········································78. 立. 第二項 Pickering 審查模式的發展與適用 ··································86. ‧ 國. 學. 第三項 Pickering 審查模式的適用爭議 ·····································95. ‧. 第四項 公務員言論自由保障的先決問題 ································ 102. sit. y. Nat. 第三節 聯邦法院實務對於 Pickering 審查模式的操作與觀察 .................. 111. er. io. 第一項 是否適用 Pickering 審查模式的疑慮 ·····························113. al. n. v i n 「職務言論」的判斷 115 C h ················································ engchi U. 第二項. 第三項 「公共關注」事務的言論類型與利益衡量 ···················· 122 第四節 小結.................................................................................................... 143 第一項 聯邦最高法院樹立的 Pickering 審查模式 ······················ 143 第二項 Pickering 審查模式的適用與類型化 ····························· 146. 第四章 美國公務員言論自由審查模式的反思與檢討 ............. 149 第一節 公務員言論自由的發展脈絡............................................................ 149 II.
(11) 第二節. 公務員言論自由限制的正當性基礎................................................ 151. 第一項 作為雇主的政府 ····················································· 152 第二項 對於管理權限觀點的質疑 ········································· 158 第三項 小結 ······································································ 165 第三節 Garcetti 案的爭議與限縮解釋 ......................................................... 167 第一項 對於 Garcetti 案的批評 ············································· 167 第二項 Garcetti 案的限縮解釋 ············································· 171. 政 治 大. 第四節 對於 Pickering 審查模式的批評 ...................................................... 173. 立. 第一項 「公共關注」審查的疑慮 ········································· 173. ‧ 國. 學. 第二項 利益衡量的問題 ····················································· 178. ‧. 第三項 適用範圍的疑義 ····················································· 178. y. Nat. er. io. sit. 第四項 可能的修正原則 ····················································· 181. al. n. v i n Ch 美國法制的啟示：我國公務員言論自由審查實務的檢討與建 engchi U. 第五章. 議 ..................................................................................... 185 第一節 美國法制對於我國公務員言論自由審查的啟示與借鏡................ 185 第一項 我國與美國關於公務員言論自由審查的比較分析 ············ 185 第二項 我國法制的反思：從「限制」到「保障」的公務員權利 ·· 201 第三項 美國法制對我國公務員言論自由爭議審查的借鏡 ··········· 206 第二節 我國具體案例的操作與分析............................................................ 212. III.
(12) 第一項 保訓會 93 公申決字第 0199 號再申訴決定 ···················· 213 第二項. 公懲會 90 年度鑑字第 9391 號議決 ····························· 215. 第三項 施文儀案 ······························································ 216 第四項 學運員警臉書案 ····················································· 220. 第六章 結論 ................................................................................. 223. 參考文獻 229. 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. IV. i n U. v.
(13) 詳目. 第一章 緒論 ..................................................................................... 1 第一節 問題意識.................................................................................................. 1 第一項 研究動機 ··································································· 1 第二項 問題的提出 ······························································ 4 第二節 研究方法與研究限制............................................................................ 7. 政 治 大. 第一項 研究方法 ································································· 7. 立. 學. ‧ 國. 第二項 研究範圍與研究限制 ·················································· 8 「公務員」的範圍 ··············································· 8. 第二款. 美國司法實務案例的研究範圍 ································ 9. ‧. 第一款. y. Nat. io. sit. 公務員參與政治性活動爭議的研究限制 ···················11. er. 第三款. 第三節 研究架構................................................................................................ 14. n. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 第二章 我國公務員言論自由保障的困境與爭議 ....................... 17 第一節 從特別權力關係理論變遷觀察公務員權利保障的嬗變.................. 17 第一項 特別權力關係理論的繼受與桎梏 ··································17 第二項 以司法院大法官解釋作為觀察路徑 ·······························20 第一款. 訴願與訴訟權的突破 ···········································20. 第二款. 法律保留的適用 ·················································21. V.
(14) 第三款. 正當程序的要求 ·················································22. 第三項 公務員基本權利的意識與契機 ·····································22 第一款. 權利救濟的限制與突破 ········································22. 第二款. 釋字第 653 號、第 684 號解釋開創的新契機 ·············25. 第三款. 公務員言論自由保障的發展 ··································27. 第二節 我國公務員言論自由限制案例的審查實務...................................... 28 第一項 實務運作現況的檢視 ·················································29 第一款. 政 治 大 涉及政治性集會與言論 ········································30 立. 第二目. 公懲會 88 年度鑑字第 8812 號議決 ···················30. 第三目. 公懲會 96 年度鑑字第 10972 號議決 ·················32. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. 批評政府的言論 ·················································33. io. 第二款. ‧. ‧ 國. 公懲會 68 年度鑑字第 5016 號議決 ···················30. 學. 第一目. 第三款. i n U. v. 關於公共事務的言論 ···········································37. Ch. engchi. 第一目. 公懲會 44 年度鑑字第 1902 號議決 ··················37. 第二目. 公懲會 50 年度鑑字第 2652 號議決 ···················37. 第三目. 公懲會 96 年度鑑字第 10972 號議決 ·················38. 第四款. 揭露機關不當、不法行為的言論 ····························39. 第一目. 公懲會 93 年度鑑字第 10234 號議決 ·················39. 第二目. 保訓會 93 公申決字第 0199 號再申訴決定 ··········40. VI.
(15) 第三目 第五款. 保訓會 101 公申決字第 0405 號再申訴決定 ········41. 對於長官的抱怨及私領域糾紛 ·······························45. 第一目. 公懲會 90 年度鑑字第 9391 號議決 ···················45. 第二目. 保訓會 87 公申決字第 0009 號再申訴決定 ··········46. 第三目. 保訓會 93 公審決字第 0028 號復審決定 ·············47. 第四目. 保訓會 98 公申決字第 0078 號再申訴決定 ··········49. 政 治 大 於救濟程序中所為之意見陳述 ·······························50 立. 第五目. 學. ‧ 國. 第六款. 保訓會 98 公申決字第 0296 號再申訴決定 ··········49. 第二項 現行實務作法的爭議與檢討 ········································51 被忽略的公務員言論自由 ·····································52. 第二款. 審查標準的欠缺 ·················································55. ‧. 第一款. n 第二目. 公務員言論影響政府正當利益的說明未盡明確 ····55. er. io. al. sit. y. Nat. 第一目. v i n 判斷因素的模糊與不足 ··································58 Ch engchi U. 第三款. 言論事前限制的妥適性 ········································61. 第四款. 謹慎義務規範的合憲性 ········································63. 第三節 小結...................................................................................................... 65. 第三章 公務員言論自由限制案件的審查及其發展─以美國法為借鏡 ........................................................................................... 67 第一節 特權理論的變遷與公務員言論自由的消長...................................... 67. VII.
(16) 第一項. 特權理論支配下的公務員關係 ·····································67. 第一款. 特權理論的概念與發展背景 ··································67. 第二款. 特權理論對於公務員言論自由的限制 ······················70. 第二項 違憲條件(unconstitutional conditions)禁止原則的發展與公務員 權利的保障·····························································73 第一款. 從社會給付領域揚棄特權理論 ·······························73. 第二款. 違憲條件禁止原則的建構 ·····································74. 第三款. 政 治 大 特權理論的消逝與公務員言論自由的保障 ················76 立. 學. ‧ 國. 第二節 美國聯邦最高法院對於公務員言論限制審查模式的發展.............. 78 第一項 Pickering 審查模式的建立 ···········································78. ‧. 第一款. 公務員言論自由保障的關鍵判決：Pickering v. Board of. y. Nat. 實質原因的舉證要求：Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of. al. v i n CDoyle Educ. v. 82 h e ····················································· ngchi U. n. 第三款. er. io. 第二款. sit. Education ··························································78. Pickering 模式適用於公務員非公開言論的審查：Givhan v. Western Lime Consol. School Dist. ····························84. 第二項 Pickering 審查模式的發展與適用 ··································86 第一款. 「公共關注」要件的重視與解釋：Connick v. Myers ····86. 第二款. 公共關注標準的適用與利益衡量的考慮因素：Rankin v. McPherson ························································89. 第三款. 言論內容的解釋認定與裁量：Waters v. Churchill ········92 VIII.
(17) 第三項. Pickering 審查模式的適用爭議 ·····································95. 第一款. 言論無涉公務員職務內容的審查：U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union ·····································95. 第二款. 言論不涉及職務卻對於機關運作產生影響的審查：City of San Diego, Cal v. Roe ············································97. 第三款. 適用 Pickering 審查模式的例外：Elrod v. Burns、Branti v. Finkel 與 Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois ············ 101. 政 治 大. 第四項 公務員言論自由保障的先決問題 ································ 102. Ceballos·························································· 102 公務員職務言論的認定與解釋：Lane v. Franks ········ 108. ‧. 第二款. 立. 公務員職務言論非屬言論自由的保障範圍：Garcetti v.. 學. ‧ 國. 第一款. sit. y. Nat. 第三節 聯邦法院實務對於 Pickering 審查模式的操作與觀察 .................. 111. n. al. er. io. 第一項 是否適用 Pickering 審查模式的疑慮 ·····························113. i n U. v. 第二項 「職務言論」的判斷 ················································115. Ch. engchi. 第一款. 「職務」範圍的認定 ··········································115. 第二款. 影響職務言論認定的因素 ····································116. 第一目. 依職位責任、法規或上級命令所負發言義務 ······116. 第二目. 言論表達的地點 ··········································117. 第三目. 言論的接收者 ·············································118. 第四目. 向媒體所表達的言論 ····································118. IX.
(18) 第五目 第三款. 言論表達使用的方式 ····································119. 教師職務言論與學術自由 ····································119. 第三項 「公共關注」事務的言論類型與利益衡量 ···················· 122 第一款. 「公共關注」的判斷因素 ··································· 122. 第二款. 利益衡量階段的權衡因素 ··································· 125. 第三款 「公共關注」事務的言論類型與利益衡量：類型化的嘗試 ···································································· 126. 政 治 大 第一目 關於當前公共政策的言論 ····························· 126 立 第三目. 關於警政事務的言論 ··································· 130. 第四目. 關於公共安全的言論 ··································· 131. 第五目. 關於教育事務的言論 ··································· 134. Nat. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 關於機關不法行為的言論 ····························· 128. 學. 第二目. n. a l 關於宗教信仰的言論 ··································· v i 135 n Ch U engchi. 第六目 第七目. 關於歧視問題的言論 ··································· 137. 第八目. 關於公務員俸給與福利的言論 ······················· 140. 第九目. 關於工作條件的抱怨與私領域糾紛的言論 ········ 142. 第四節 小結.................................................................................................... 143 第一項 聯邦最高法院樹立的 Pickering 審查模式 ······················ 143 第二項 Pickering 審查模式的適用與類型化 ····························· 146. X.
(19) 第四章 美國公務員言論自由審查模式的反思與檢討 ............. 149 第一節. 公務員言論自由的發展脈絡............................................................ 149. 第二節 公務員言論自由限制的正當性基礎................................................ 151 第一項 作為雇主的政府 ····················································· 152 第一款. 言論自由審查的基本體系與變形 ·························· 152. 第二款. 基於「管理權力」的言論管制 ····························· 153. 第三款. 「管理領域」內的言論管制 ································ 156. 第二項. 政 治 大 對於管理權限觀點的質疑 ········································· 158 立. 第二款. 公務員言論的價值 ············································ 163. ‧. ‧ 國. 同質理論的批評 ··············································· 158. 學. 第一款. y. Nat. 第三項 小結 ······································································ 165. al. er. io. sit. 第三節 Garcetti 案的爭議與限縮解釋 ......................................................... 167. v. n. 第一項 對於 Garcetti 案的批評 ············································· 167. Ch. engchi. i n U. 第一款. 舉證責任的爭議 ··············································· 168. 第二款. 判斷標準的模糊 ··············································· 168. 第三款. 適得其反的效果 ··············································· 169. 第四款. 左右為難的困境 ··············································· 170. 第五款. 寒蟬效應 ························································ 170. 第二項 Garcetti 案的限縮解釋 ············································· 171 第四節 對於 Pickering 審查模式的批評 ...................................................... 173 XI.
(20) 第一項. 「公共關注」審查的疑慮 ········································· 173. 第一款. 公共關注的要求構成言論內容限制 ······················· 173. 第二款. 公共關注的要求與管理權限的矛盾 ······················· 175. 第三款. 判斷公關關注言論的困難 ··································· 176. 第四款. 寒蟬效應 ························································ 177. 第二項 利益衡量的問題 ····················································· 178. 政 治 大 可能的修正原則 立 ····················································· 181. 第三項 適用範圍的疑義 ····················································· 178. 學. 第一款. 與職務無關言論的推定保障 ································ 181. 第二款. 公共關注要求的捨棄 ········································· 182. 第三款. 政府制度目的的要求 ········································· 182. ‧. ‧ 國. 第四項. er. io. sit. y. Nat. n. al 第五章 美國法制的啟示：我國公務員言論自由審查實務的檢討與建 iv n U engchi 議 ..................................................................................... 185. Ch. 第一節 美國法制對於我國公務員言論自由審查的啟示與借鏡................ 185 第一項 我國與美國關於公務員言論自由審查的比較分析 ············ 185 第一款. 關於限制公務員言論正當利益的比較 ···················· 185. 第二款. 公務員言論自由審查原則的比較 ·························· 187. 第一目. 審查模式 ·················································· 187. 第二目. 舉證責任與言論爭議的判斷 ·························· 188 XII.
(21) 第三款. 關於公務員言論自由審查因素的比較 ···················· 189. 第一目. 言論的類型 ··············································· 190. 第二目. 公務員的職務內容 ······································ 191. 第三目. 輔助的判斷因素： 「言論表達的時間與地點」以及「言 論的公開程度」 ········································ 192. 第四款. 匿名言論言論的爭議 ········································· 195. 第五款. 關於公務員發表不實言論的審查比較 ···················· 196. 第六款. 政 治 大 關於公務員未遵循體制內發言管道的審查比較 ········ 198 立 特別權力關係內的基本權限制 ····························· 201. ‧. ‧ 國. 第一款. 學. 第二項 我國法制的反思：從「限制」到「保障」的公務員權利 ·· 201. sit. y. Nat. 第二款 本文的觀察與評析 ·············································· 204. n. al. er. io. 第三項 美國法制對我國公務員言論自由爭議審查的借鏡 ··········· 206 第一款 第二款. i n U. v. 制度目的的重要性 ············································ 206. Ch. engchi. 審查模式的操作與適用 ······································ 208. 第一目. 公務員言論類型的影響 ································ 208. 第二目. 公務員職務內容的考量 ································ 209. 第三目. 言論表達的時間與地點以及言論的公開程度 ····· 210. 第四目. 公務員匿名言論的特殊性 ····························· 210. 第五目. 公務員不實言論與未循體制發言管道的言論受憲法 保障的可能性 ··········································· 212 XIII.
(22) 第二節. 我國具體案例的操作與分析............................................................ 212. 第一項 保訓會 93 公申決字第 0199 號再申訴決定 ···················· 213 第一款. 案例事實 ························································ 213. 第二款. 審查操作與評價 ··············································· 213. 第二項 公懲會 90 年度鑑字第 9391 號議決 ····························· 215 第一款. 政 治 大 施文儀案 立······························································ 216. 第二款. 審查操作與評價 ··············································· 215. 學. ‧ 國. 第三項. 案例事實 ························································ 215. 案例事實 ························································ 216. 第二款. 審查操作與評價 ··············································· 219. ‧. 第一款. sit. er. 案例事實 ························································ 220. io. 第一款. y. Nat. 第四項 學運員警臉書案 ····················································· 220. al. n. v i n 審查操作與評價 220 C h ··············································· engchi U. 第二款. 第六章 結論 ................................................................................. 223. 參考文獻 229. XIV.
相關文件
First, in the Intel documentation, the encoding of the MOV instruction that moves an immediate word into a register is B8 +rw dw, where +rw indicates that a register code (0-7) is to
We then use Theorem 1 to show that a graph having neither articulation points nor similar pairs must have an induced subgraph isomorphic to some member of
The ProxyFactory class provides the addAdvice() method that you saw in Listing 5-3 for cases where you want advice to apply to the invocation of all methods in a class, not just
Given proxies, find the optimal placement of the proxies in the network, such that the overall access cost(including both read and update costs) is minimized.. For an
Once you get down to a purely business level, your influence is gone and the true light of your life isdimmed. You must work in the missionary spirit, with a breadth of charity
Write the following problem on the board: “What is the area of the largest rectangle that can be inscribed in a circle of radius 4?” Have one half of the class try to solve this
(Once again, please be reminded that increase in money supply does not mean that it automatically increases the money holding by the people. It must go through the process that
We must assume, further, that between a nucleon and an anti-nucleon strong attractive forces exist, capable of binding the two particles together.. *Now at the Institute for
