覆議制度保障了誰？從臺灣地方縣市覆議權之規範及行使經驗探討（1994-2010）

Veto Power System for Whom? On the Regulations and Practices of Veto Power in Taiwan's Local Counties and Cities (1994-2010)

10.6229/CPSR.2012.54.02

廖達琪(Da-Chi Liao)；羅日春(Ri-Chun Luo)

縣市覆議權 ； 地方制度法 ； 臺灣 ； 地方議會 ； 覆議制度行政 ； city & county veto power ； Local Government Act ； Taiwan ； local legislative council ； veto power institution

政治學報

54期（2012 / 12 / 01）

27 - 55

繁體中文

本文同時針對覆議權的法制規範面及經驗實務面，希冀探討覆議權在臺灣地方政府自1994以降，依據省縣自治法及直轄市自治法等二法，以及1999年整合改訂的地方制度法來行使，究竟能否達成其理論上之目的—保障行政權，及立法過程的周延性。綜合前面的分析，本文發現：第一，地制法對覆議權的相關規範確實較二法能保障行政權，但這樣的保障較二元民主典範美國總統覆議權的效力，相對仍不足；其次，地制法的善意規範，不見得對行政行使覆議權有利，而規範不清之處，又造成行使的疑義，亦未見得嘉惠於決策內容之周延。第三，覆議權的行使情境還必須剔除派系及黑金特別活躍的地方，才較能保障少數政府的行政權。所以如要能讓覆議制度較徹底的保障行政權，法規上對覆議權規範不夠明確，形成法律灰色地帶；或本為保障及提升行政權的，但實際上行政權並未得到應有益處等問題，應做適當的修正及調整。本文針對這些，提出4項未來地制法或可參考修訂之處。

This article studies the veto power which resides in Taiwan's local governments both from the legal/ institutional and empirical perspectives. Three related Acts that have regulated local veto power since 1994 are examined in this study. They are: the Self-Governance Act for Provinces and Counties (SGAPC, 1994), the Self-Governance Act for Special Municipalities (SGASM, 1994), and the Local Government Act (LGA, 1999) that has integrated the two SGAs and become the currently enacted law. The article explores whether the regulations regarding veto power drawn from the two SGAs, as well as the LGA, and their consecutive implementation in practice, have been able to achieve the theoretical goals designated in veto power, i.e., to protect administrative power, on the one hand, and to improve the quality of legislation, on the other. After analyzing these three Acts and comparatively examining their realization between 1994 to 1999 and 2000 to 2010, the article uncovers the followings: First, although the veto power institution resided in LGA has been doing a better job than that in the two SGAs in terms of protecting administrative power, its practical function has not been as effective as that of the veto power institution designated by the American presidential system, which is the so-called model of dual democracy. Second, some regulations in the LGA that seemingly are intended to protect the administration have not really been beneficial to it in practice. Furthermore, some of them may be obscure in nature, and have, in fact, resulted in some confusion and debate when enacted. Neither have these kinds of rules been able to improve the quality of legislation. Third, the effective use of the veto power by the local administration has been limited to the countries & cities that are not subject to active factions or black money activities. In sum, if the veto power, as designated, aims to protect the administration, some ambiguities residing in the current LGA's regulations should be further clarified. Some regulations that are well intended but not substantially beneficial to the administrative power in practice may also need to be adjusted. This artlcle then provides four suggestions for the consideration of future LGA revisions.

1. 吳重禮(2000)。美國「分立性政府」研究文獻之評析：兼論臺灣地區的政治發展。問題與研究，39(3)，75-101。
   連結：
2. 何明國，1999，（地制法對議會限制，內政部擬放寬），《聯合報》，1999/4/14：04版。
3. 凌佩君，1999，（議員陳情叫罵，黃主文拂袖去），《聯合報》，1999/3/13：04版。
4. "Summary of Bills Vetoed, 1789-Present," 2012, in United States Senate: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm, Available: 2012/11/21.
5. 林敬殷，2004，（國親將提案，覆議須採全案），《聯合報》，2004/1/3：A11版。
6. 葛永光，2007，（總統否決權與覆議制度之研究：美、法、中之經驗），國家政策研究基金會：http://www.npf.org.tw/post/2/393。2011/5/10。
7. " Veto Details, Minnesota Legislature: 1939-Present," 2012, in Minnesota Legislative Reference Library: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/vetoes/vetodetails.aspx,Available: 2012/11/21.
8. 任羽中，2005，（臺灣地區基層民主選舉中的黑金政治），二十一世紀網路版：http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/supplem/essay/0411019.htm。2007/3/29。
9. Brady, D. W.(1993).The Causes and Consequences of Divided Government: Toward a New Theory of American Politics?.The American Political Sciences Review,87(1),189-194.
10. Grant, A.、劉世忠譯(1999)。美國政府與政治。臺北市:五南圖書出版。
11. Mayhew, D. R.(1974).Congress: The Electoral Connection.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
12. 古登美、沈中元、周萬來(1998)。立法理論與實務。臺北市:國立空中大學出版中心。
13. 林水波(2004)。公投覆議與制度反省。立法院院聞，32(10)，11-24。
14. 翁興利(2000)。地方政府與政治。臺北市:高鼎文化事業。
15. 張崑山編、黃政雄編(1996)。地方派系與臺灣政治。臺北市:聯經出版社。
16. 許宗力(1999)。憲法與法治國行政。臺北市:元照出版社。
17. 黃秀端(1995)。縣市菁英對衝突的認知。東吳政治學報，4，85-114。
18. 黃昭元(2002)。平時製造新聞，去時製造法案－跨屆法案的覆議問題。月旦法學，83，8-9。
19. 廖達琪(2001)。蔣經國國際學術交流基金會補助研究計畫報告蔣經國國際學術交流基金會補助研究計畫報告,蔣經國國際學術交流基金會。
20. 趙永茂(1998)。地方政治生態與地方行政的關係。政治科學論叢，9，305-328。
21. 羅日春(2006)。國立中山大學政治學研究所。
22. 羅清俊(2000)。猜猜看是誰把醃肉帶回家了：補助款利益在縣市分配的分析。人文及社會科學集刊，12(1)，1-45。
23. 羅傳賢(1996)。立法程序與技術。臺北市:五南圖書出版。
24. 蘇永欽(2002)。法律案跨屆覆議的憲法問題。法令月刊，53(2)，3-12。