【作者】 黄玲玲；

【导师】 幸强国；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 行政管理， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 行政听证制度是指行政机关在行使行政权,做出不利于行政相对人权利义务的决定前,就有关的事实和法律听取利害关系人意见的程序性法律制度。听证制度是行政程序法的核心和灵魂,其作为现代民主政治的产物,在国家的政治生活中发挥了越来越重要的作用。听证制度源于古老的“自然公正原则”,是天赋人权在行政领域中的延续。1946年,美国公布实施了《联邦行政程序法》,首次以成文法形式明确规定了行政听证程序。我国于1996年在《行政处罚法》中第一次引入行政听证制度,随后在《价格法》、《立法法》和《行政许可法》等法律法规中得以具体规定,适用范围不断扩大,在保障行政相对人合法权益、保证行政决策的科学性和民主性等方面发挥了重要的作用。从不知听证到参与听证,从举办听证会到为听证会提供制度保障,它带来了公众参与法制建设的在观念上的变革,也体现了我国民主政治向高层次的提升。但是由于行政听证制度引入我国的时间不长,与西方国家的行政听证制度相比,我国行政听证制度还存在一些问题,如听证透明度不高、听证主持人独立性不强、听证笔录的法律效力不明确和听证制度不完善等,使得在实践中“听而不证”的现象时常出现,从而使行政听证流于形式。因此,加快建设行政听证制度的步伐,进一步完善我国行政听证制度,真正实现民主、公平和公正的价值目标,这一任务迫在眉睫。本文正文共分为四个部分:第一部分介绍了行政听证制度的基本理论;第二部分比较中外行政听证程序,并得出结论;第三部分通过对两个现实案例的分析总结了我国行政听证制度的问题及其成因;第四部分探讨了完善我国行政听证制度的路径分析。第一部分:行政听证制度的基本理论。第一节在对听证概念进行分析的基础上引出行政听证制度的概念。所谓行政听证制度,是指行政机关在行使行政权,做出不利于行政相对人权利义务的决定前,就有关的事实和法律听取利害关系人意见的程序性法律制度。其基本原则有:公正原则、公开原则、职能分离原则、参与原则以及规避原则。第二节介绍了行政听证制度的法理基础及其法律价值。笔者比较了听证制度的两大法系代表国家的法理基础,英国普通法中“自然公正”原则一般认为是西方听证制度最早的法理基础,后来美国的“正当法律程序”又深化了这一法理基础。在大陆法系国家,依法治国理论,特别是依法行政原理的完善为行政听证制度直接提供了法理基础。接着笔者追溯了我国传统文化和当代宪政精神中的民主思想和要求,我国宪法中人民民主原则为行政程序乃至行政听证制度提供了深厚的宪法和法理基础。在我国立法及实践中,行政听证制度尚处于初创阶段。对行政听证制度的规则和功能进行分析固然重要,但挖掘听证制度深层的价值内涵和精神意蕴,进行更高层次的价值分析更为重要。行政听证制度的内在价值就是公正和公开。外在价值有两个,一是听证制度的设立使得在行政决定做出以前为行政相对人提供一个表达意见的机会。二是听证制度为行政主体做出公正的决定提供程序上的保障。第二部分:中外行政听证程序比较。分别从行政听证的适用范围、行政听证的程序以及行政听证的主体三个方面进行了中外比较,并从这三个方面分别得出相应的结论。其中,行政听证的程序分别从听证笔录和听证报告两个角度进行了中外比较;行政听证的主体分别从听证主持人和听证参与人两个角度进行了中外比较。通过中外的比较可以看到我国在行政听证制度上还需要不断的向国外较为先进成熟的制度和实践学习。第三部分:我国行政听证制度的案例分析、面临问题以及成因分析。先介绍了我国引入行政听证制度的现实意义。我国引入行政听证制度有利于依法行政,提高行政决策的科学性和民主化程度;可以保证裁决中立和行政自由裁量权的公正行使;有利于扩大公民政治参与的途径和范围,提高公民的参与意识,促进民主政治的发展。通过对两个现实行政听证案例的深度分析总结了目前我国行政听证制度存在的问题,主要表现在四个方面:一、缺乏统一的立法规则,中国目前未制定统一的行政程序法典,也没有单行立法规定统一的听证制度,关于听证的规定散见于单行法律文件中。这样一方面造成立法资源的浪费,另一方面造成立法空白与听证规则的不统一。二、行政行为的听证使用范围太窄,这集中体现在具体行政行为和抽象行政行为中的听证适用范围上。三、行政听证程序的局限,包括:听证代表人的产生方式不合理,导致代表人缺乏广泛性,能力不够;主持人数目资格规定不清,选任欠缺中立性,主持人缺乏专业性;听证笔录对最终决定的效力不明确;部分听证规则不设立辩论程序,违反严词原则。四、缺乏有效的反馈机制和法律责任规定。导致该缺陷的原因在于:一、行政听证制度在我国处于发展初期,需要进一步完善;二、重实体、轻程序的旧法制观念根深蒂固;三、公民的法律主人翁意识和权利意识薄弱;四、行政听证的具体制度建设不够完善。第四部分:完善我国行政听证制度的路径分析。笔者试提出以下路径以完善我国行政听证制度:一、制定统一的行政听证规则;二、扩大行政听证的适用范围,包括具体行政行为和抽象行政行为两方面的听证适用范围的扩大;三、建立完善的行政听证程序,包括:改变听证会代表的产生方式,确保听证会参与主体的广泛性和代表性;健全主持人制度:主持人的选任要确保中立性、专业性,确保听证真实有效的进行;强化听证记录对最终决定的约束力:确立案卷排他原则;将质证规定为听证的必经程序。四、建立有效的反馈制度。可以考虑在公布最终决策时,用前言性文字说明在听证会上提出的各种意见的处理结果。五、完善行政听证法律责任追究制度,确保听证真实有效的进行。离开了行之有效的法律责任机制的保障,任何设计完善的法律制度都将得不到真正实现,行政听证制度也是如此。如果不强化和完善法律责任追究机制,行政机关就会在举不举行听证、如何举行听证这些问题上随心所欲,结果使听证变成一种形式。目前,我国有关行政听证的法律规定十分有限,实践中存在很多不足,我国应当吸收和借鉴世界各国关于听证的各种先进经验,建立有中国特色的听证制度,以便更好地维护我国公民的合法权益,确保依法行政。更多还原

【Abstract】 The administration hearing system is a procedural legal system,which means that the administrative authority should hear the voice of interested person on the related fact and laws before they use their administrative power to make the un-interest decision to appositive party. The hearing system is the core and soul of the administration procedural law. As the result of the modern democratic politics, it has played an increasingly important role in the political life of the state. The hearing system stems from the ancient principle of the natural justice, which is the continuation of the human rights in administrative area.In the year of 1946, American government promulgated and implemented the administration procedural laws and for the first time, the administrative hearing system had been clearly stipulated in the written form. Since“administrative penalty law”established administrative hearing in 1996, it was prescribed in detail in“price law”,“legislation law”, etc. it applied more and more widely and plays an important role in ensuring rights and interests of the other side of the administration decision. Never know the hearing gets the hearing of participating in, it brings the public’s idea of participating in legal construction to improve; from the hearing of holding to designing the system to ensure for the hearing, it has reflected the democracy of our country is promoted to a high level. But a number of defects and deficiencies exist yet in out country’s present administrative hearing system compared to western countries, such as the lack of transparency, the nondependent legal status of the host, the ambiguity of record and the faultiness of the system itself, because it was not a long time since introduced from foreign countries. So we should accelerate building the system of administrative hearing, perfect it further, make it thrive in our country, and realize the value objective of democracy and equality.This paper is divided into four chapters: First chapter: to introduce the basic theory of administrative hearing system; Second chapter: to make a comparison of administrative hearing system between China and foreign countries and draw conclusions; Third: to find out the defects of administrative hearing system of our country and the reasons to cause it through deep analysis of practical cases; Fourth: to propose several ways of perfecting administrative hearing system of our country.In the first chapter, the author introduced the basic theory of administrative hearing system.In the first section, the author introduced the concept and basic principles of the administrative hearing system. The administration hearing system is a procedural legal system,which means that the administrative authority should hear the voice of interested person on the related fact and laws before they use their administrative power to make the un-interest decision to appositive party. The hearing system should follow the basic principles, namely the justice principle, the public principle, the participation principle, the evasion principle and so on. In the second section, the author introduced the theoretical foundation and values of the administrative hearing system. In British normal laws, the“natural justice”principle was generally considered as the earliest theoretical foundation in western hearing system. Later,“the due process of law”of U.S.A deepened this theoretical foundation. In the legislation and practice of our country, the administrative hearing system is still in preliminary stage. So the exploration of intention and spirit, the analysis of value to higher level is more important. The inside values of the administrative hearing system are justice and publicity. The outside value is to provide an opportunity for appositive party to express their opinion and procedurally secure the administrative authority to make just decision.In the second chapter, the author made a comparison of administrative hearing system between China and foreign countries and draw conclusions finally.The author made a comparison of administrative hearing system on three aspects, namely the applicable scope of administrative hearing, the procedure of administrative hearing and the parties of administrative hearing. The administrative hearing procedure contains effect of hearing record and hearing report while the administrative parties include hearing host and hearing participants. From the comparison between China and foreign countries, we can see that we should learn advanced and mature administrative hearing system from foreign countries both on system and practice.In the third chapter, the author found out the defects of administrative hearing system of our country and the reasons to cause it through deep analysis of two practical cases.In the first section, the author talked about the realistic significance of administrative hearing system introduced into our country. It is favorable to administrate according to the law and enhance the scientific and democratic extent of administrative policy. It is also favorable to raise citizens’participation sense and promote democratic and political development. In the second section, the author made a deep analysis of two realistic cases. In the third section, from the two cases, the defects of administrative hearing system in our country can be concluded in four aspects: first, lack of unified legislation; Second, the hearing applicable scope of administrative behavior is too limited including concrete administrative behavior and abstract administrative behavior. Third, to introduce the defects of administrative hearing procedure including that the selection of hearing representatives is unreasonable which cause the incompetence of the representatives; the hearing host is lack of neutrality and proficiency; the effect of hearing record for the final decision is uncertain; no debate procedure is set in some of hearing regulations. Fourth, lack of effective feedback system and legal responsibility investigation system. There are three main reasons to cause the above defects: first, the administrative hearing system is at its early stage in our country and need to be further perfected; Second, old legal concept of regardless of procedure; Third, the citizens are weak in sense of legal participation and rights; Fourth, the concrete regulations construction of administrative hearing system are not completed.In the fourth chapter, the author has proposed several ways and means of perfecting the administrative hearing system of our country according to the above defects.First of all, unified administrative hearing system should be stipulated. Second, enlarge the applicable scope of administrative hearing system including concrete administrative behavior and abstract administrative behavior. Third, establish complete administrative hearing procedure including that change the way of selecting representatives to ensure the quality and capability; perfect hearing host’s system to keep the director neutral and proficient; strengthen the binding force of the hearing record for the final decision: to establish the exclusiveness rule of the files; put debate as the necessary procedure of hearing system. Fourth, establish effective feedback system. Fifth, perfect legal responsibility investigation system of hearing system to ensure the hearing to be conducted effectively and trulyAt present, administrative hearing is very limited in our country, so there are a lot of disadvantages. We should use advanced experience about the hearing of countries all over the world for reference, set up the hearing system with Chinese characteristics, in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the citizen of our country better, guarantee administrations according to law.更多还原