| 摘要: | 我國憲法第16條保障「人民有請願、訴願及訴訟之權。」訴願權是為人民之基本權利，但進行訴願之前，會要求先進行訴願先行程序，而此一基本權利之內涵為何，以及訴願先行是否為對於行政救濟為有效程序，或為可有可無程序，在學說上有些許爭議。且訴願制度既為憲法所明定之制度性保障，又為何現行各特別法中，有規定為訴願先行程序、訴願相當程序及訴願併行程序等規定？人民對機關之處分認有違法或不當時，訴願及行政訴訟乃為最直接也最有效之權利救濟，該權利救濟適用上之成效如何？有前置程序之訴願程序，對人民之保障為更縝密謹慎，亦或是徒增人民救濟時之困擾？
此外本文提出調處制度於本國行政法領域使用上之可行性，包括調處制度與現行程序之比較、調處程序之優缺點、調處程序取代訴願先行程序之可行性、調處程序在行政救濟中之適用範圍以及可以進行調處之案件條件。因此本文將嘗試以各機關在辦理訴願之先行程序時人民之救濟效率輔以實務及學說之見解，嘗試分析現行之先行程序存在之效果，再就其必要性做討論，以確定調處程序是否可替代現行之訴願先行程序，是否與人民訴請求救濟保障之憲法精神相符。
Article 16 of our constitution guarantees that "the people have the right to petition, appeal, and sue." The right to appeal is a basic right of the people, but before proceeding with an appeal, a preliminary appeal process is required. The essence of this basic right, and whether the preliminary appeal is an effective procedure for administrative remedies or an optional procedure, has some controversy in academia. Also, why is it that the current various special laws have provisions for preliminary appeal procedures, equivalent appeal procedures, and concurrent appeal procedures, given that the appeal system is a constitutional system guarantee? When people believe that the agency's disposition is illegal or improper, the appeal and administrative lawsuit are the most direct and effective rights remedies. How effective is this right to remedy in application? Does the appeal procedure with a prior procedure provide more meticulous and careful protection for the people, or does it merely increase the trouble when the people
seek relief?
Furthermore, this article proposes the feasibility of using the conciliation system in the field of our country's administrative law, including a comparison of the conciliation system and the current procedures, the advantages and disadvantages of the conciliation process, the feasibility of replacing the preliminary appeal process with the conciliation process, the scope of application of the conciliation process in administrative remedies, and the conditions for cases that can be conciliated. Therefore, this article will attempt to analyze the effect of the current preliminary procedures by supplementing the efficiency of the people's relief when various agencies handle the preliminary procedures of the appeal, with practical and academic opinions, and then discuss their necessity to determine whether the conciliation process can replace the current preliminary appeal process, and whether it is in line with the constitutional spirit of the people's right to seek relief. |
