A Study on Administrative Hearing Process in Taiwan —Comparison with Legal Scheme of the United States

• Main Authors: YING-YIN, TSAI, 蔡穎瑩
• Other Authors: CHICH-HENG, KUO
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/67732141388750263799

碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 法律學系一般生組 === 96 === In light of the tendency of administrative law, for two reasons that the importance of process-oriented control is given an essential role, one is to increase the accuracy of the administrative decisions; another is to emphasis that prevention is better than cure. There are five potential sources of procedural requirements that agencies must follow in American legal scheme—agency rules, the Constitution, statutes, executive orders, and the common law. This thesis starts from introducing and analyzing the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, moreover discussing the disputes of due process between the Courts and seek to find out the limitation on required procedures. Because of this constant process of cross-fertilization between the Due Process Clause, statutorily required procedures and procedures required by agency riles, most procedural safeguards employed by agencies have their rooted in the Due Process Clause. Due process required a “hearing”, and the Court meant by hearing the kind of proceeding traditionally used by courts to litigate civil disputes. It continuously observes Administrative Procedure Act. Statutes are the most important single source of procedural requirements. An agency’s choice of procedures in a given case may be affected by several statutes. Comparison with our legal scheme of administrative law, could we interpret and find the foundation of the Due Process Clause in our Constitution scheme? This thesis tries to find out and discuss the foundation of the Due Process Clause in our constitutional rights scheme in theoretical and practical ways. Finally, observing our administrative hearing system. In our administrative practices, agencies sometimes can’t distinguish between formal hearing and public hearing. For the absence of other mechanisms which can distinguish between formal hearing and public hearing, the Executive Tuan has to agree to include such a procedure in to the Draft.