{"billNo":"1000110070200100","提案單位/提案委員":"本院委員蔡錦隆等106人","議案名稱":"「監察法第二十四條及第二十五條條文修正草案」，請審議案。","相關附件":[{"網址":"https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/download/agenda/02/pdf/07/07/01/LCEWA01_070701_00020.pdf","名稱":"關係文書PDF"},{"網址":"https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/download/agenda/02/word/07/07/01/LCEWA01_070701_00020.doc","名稱":"關係文書DOC"}],"關連議案":[],"提案人":["蔡錦隆","蔣孝嚴"],"連署人":["李鴻鈞","楊麗環","顏清標","簡肇棟","余天","黃淑英","李復興","陳瑩","吳育昇","徐少萍","蔡煌瑯","余政道","林郁方","侯彩鳳","鄭汝芬","孔文吉","呂學樟","吳清池","簡東明","趙麗雲","張顯耀","林德福","林炳坤","林滄敏","徐中雄","黃偉哲","林淑芬","陳節如","劉盛良","許舒博","蕭景田","翁金珠","黃義交","黃昭順","潘維剛","馬文君","蔡正元","鄭麗文","楊仁福","周守訓","葉宜津","邱毅","朱鳳芝","賴士葆","費鴻泰","孫大千","賴坤成","廖國棟","蔣乃辛","林建榮","李慶華","林鴻池","羅淑蕾","李明星","曹爾忠","羅明才","楊瓊瓔","謝國樑","黃志雄","陳杰","盧嘉辰","高志鵬","江義雄","林明溱","丁守中","洪秀柱","帥化民","郭素春","張慶忠","盧秀燕","鄭金玲","鍾紹和","蘇震清","邱議瑩","蔡同榮","王幸男","陳亭妃","涂醒哲","管碧玲","彭紹瑾","黃仁杼","劉建國","陳明文","徐耀昌","柯建銘","潘孟安","薛凌","陳淑慧","王進士","田秋堇","江玲君","廖婉汝","李俊毅","張嘉郡","陳根德","郭榮宗","郭玟成","康世儒","王廷升","陳福海","陳秀卿","劉銓忠","高金素梅","紀國棟"],"議案狀態":"排入院會","議案流程":[{"會期":"07-07-01","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"交付審查","日期":["2011-02-22"]},{"會期":"07-07-01","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會 (交司法及法制委員會)","日期":["2011-02-22"]}],"mtime":"2024-01-19T05:00:50+08:00","屆期":7,"first_time":"2011-02-22","last_time":"2011-02-22","議案類別":"法律案","提案來源":"委員提案","meet_id":"院會-7-7-1","會期":7,"字號":"院總第70號委員提案第10248號","laws":["04708"],"提案編號":"70委10248","案由":"本院委員蔡錦隆、蔣孝嚴等106人，鑑於監察院對行政院及其所屬部會尚未實施之工作即提出糾正案，且動輒約詢行政官員，甚至要求外交駐外人員到監察院業務報告，有違五權分立之憲法精神，也有監察權干預行政權及侵犯立法權之不當。因此，監察院提出糾正案及約詢之時機，應於監察法中明確規定，以免行政權窒礙難行，亦免發生憲政災難！爰擬具「監察法第二十四條及第二十五條修正草案」。敬請公決。","說明":"一、如修正總說明。\n二、附條文修正對照表乙份。","對照表":[{"law_id":"04708","law_name":"監察法","立法種類":"修正條文","title":"監察法第二十四條及第二十五條條文修正草案對照表","rows":[{"現行":"第二十四條　監察院於調查行政院及其所屬各級機關之工作及設施後，經各有關委員會之審查及決議，得由監察院提出糾正案，移送行政院或有關部會，促其注意改善。","law_content_id":"04708:04708:1949-05-20-修正:28","說明":"一、監察院對於行政院及其所屬各級機關尚未實施之工作即提出糾正案，有違憲法精神，也有違「事後監督」之憲法分權。\n\n二、因此必須明定對已實施之工作及設施始可提出糾正，以免干預行政權，亦免侵犯立法權。","修正":"第二十四條　監察院於調查行政院及其所屬各級機關已實施之工作及設施後，經各有關委員會之審查及決議，得由監察院提出糾正案，移送行政院或有關部會，促其注意改善。"},{"現行":"第二十五條　行政院或有關部會接到糾正案後，應即為適當之改善與處置，並應以書面答復監察院，如逾二個月仍未將改善與處置之事實答復監察院時，監察院得質問之。","law_content_id":"04708:04708:1953-04-17-修正:29","說明":"一、糾正案只是移請被糾正機關「促其注意改善」，則被糾正機關當然不一定要「改善及處置」，被糾正機關如認無必要改善及處置，提出適當說明即可，爰將現行條文中的「應即為適當改善與處置」修正為「應提出說明或即為適當之改善與處置」；並將「如逾二個月仍未將改善與處置事實答復」修正為「如逾二個月仍未提出適當說明或仍未將改善與處置之事實答復」。\n\n二、糾正權僅限於「促其注意改善」，被糾正機關並無「遵照辦理」之義務。但本條竟規定「如逾兩個月仍未改善與處置之事實答復監察院得質問之」，且監察法施行細則第二十條及二十之一條，竟將其「彈劾權作為糾正權後盾」，將糾正案擴張為被糾正機關不予改善及處置時，除可要求被糾正機關主管人員到監察院接受質問外，不必進一步待公務人員發生違法或失職情事，即可據以提出彈劾。如此，監察院可以藉糾正權，即任意約詢行政官員，已涉逾憲法職權。顯有修正必要，將「質問之」修正為「得以書面質問之」。","修正":"第二十五條　行政院或有關部會接到糾正案後，應提出說明或即為適當之改善與處置，並應以書面答復監察院，如逾二個月仍未提出適當說明或仍未將改善與處置之事實答復監察院時，監察院得以書面質問之。"}]}],"ppg_url":"https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/bills/1000110070200100/details"}