{"error":false,"id":["170761"],"data":{"IVOD_ID":170761,"IVOD_URL":"https://ivod.ly.gov.tw/Play/Clip/1M/170761","日期":"2026-07-29","影片種類":"Clip","開始時間":"2026-07-29T14:39:02+08:00","結束時間":"2026-07-29T14:44:57+08:00","影片長度":"00:05:55","支援功能":["ai-transcript"],"video_url":"https://ivod-lyvod.cdn.hinet.net/vod_1/_definst_/mp4:1MClips/271ed4367c1fa464dcea640b7e2fb98df150748d7d33305b8824381bb2058fb2bb2b46c06798901d5ea18f28b6918d91.mp4/playlist.m3u8","委員名稱":"劉書彬","委員發言時間":"14:39:02 - 14:44:57","會議時間":"2026-07-29T14:00:00+08:00","會議名稱":"立法院第11屆修憲委員會公聽會(第1場)（事由：討論提綱：自民國80年第一次公布制定中華民國憲法增修條文，並至民國94年第七次增修後，我國逾20年未曾變動之憲政體制於五權分立制度及實務運行產生之困境探討。）","transcript":{"pyannote":[{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":9.73409375,"end":22.99784375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":23.85846875,"end":51.17909375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":51.80346875,"end":58.570343750000006},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":58.907843750000005,"end":71.66534375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":72.77909375,"end":76.06971875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":76.59284375,"end":84.92909375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":85.50284375000001,"end":115.37159375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":116.04659375000001,"end":126.12096875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":126.42471875000001,"end":140.65034375000002},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":141.51096875000002,"end":162.30096875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":162.85784375,"end":181.30221875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":182.06159375000001,"end":195.98346875000001},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":197.16471875000002,"end":211.62659375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":212.63909375,"end":213.19596875000002},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":213.85409375,"end":217.34721875000002},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":217.78596875000002,"end":229.48034375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":230.32409375,"end":244.27971875000003},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":244.61721875,"end":247.60409375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":248.04284375,"end":251.82284375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":252.66659375,"end":259.07909375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":259.66971875,"end":261.10409375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":261.84659375,"end":266.23409375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":266.90909375,"end":270.65534375000004},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":271.27971875000003,"end":272.66346875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":273.05159375,"end":289.47096875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":290.38221875,"end":290.97284375000004},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":291.81659375000004,"end":296.40659375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":297.65534375000004,"end":302.14409375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":302.65034375000005,"end":311.88096875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":312.35346875000005,"end":316.96034375},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":317.95596875,"end":327.40596875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":327.94596875,"end":339.99471875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":340.31534375,"end":350.22096875},{"speaker":"SPEAKER_00","start":355.24971875,"end":355.97534375000004}],"whisperx":[{"start":0,"end":23,"text":"好,謝謝主席,感謝在場的學者專家來到我們現場,針對修憲的議題來做討論,發表這樣的寶貴意見。"},{"start":24,"end":35,"text":"那身為一個長期在研究政治學跟憲政體制的學者,我要站在這裡呢,和大家來共同商討,修憲裡面的廢除監察院的議題。"},{"start":35,"end":43,"text":"我們雖然知道說有非常多的議題,但是我們就針對現在最急迫要需要可能,而且比較容易達成共識的部分來進行。"},{"start":43,"end":51,"text":"從憲政制度跟設計的精神來看,權力分立的精神呢,在於要相互的制衡。"},{"start":51,"end":58,"text":"當年設計五權憲法,還有它的初衷是希望能夠發揚監察權的獨立性。"},{"start":58,"end":76,"text":"然而,眾觀世界成熟的民主國家呢,幾乎沒有一個任何一個體制會設有一個獨立於司法跟立法權之外呢,卻又缺乏實質執行力的這樣的一個監察機關。"},{"start":76,"end":85,"text":"現實上面的運作更告訴我們呢,當前的監察院呢,早已已經陷入到嚴重的結構性的失能。"},{"start":85,"end":99,"text":"最典型的例子呢,就是日前在監察院的秘書長拒絕出席司法及法治委員會,依據憲法67條第二項的邀請備詢時的行刑。"},{"start":99,"end":115,"text":"然後我們也看到,依據司法院的釋字461號解釋,五院院長呢,基於相互尊重不得受邀備詢,但是對於具有行政性質職務的人員呢,原則上是不得拒絕出席。"},{"start":115,"end":132,"text":"監察院卻刻意去混淆機關首長與行政幕僚的這個界線,拿五院平行當擋箭牌,鑽法律的灰色地帶,在需要預算的時候,法案的時候才審查,面對業務質詢的時候就不來。"},{"start":132,"end":140,"text":"這種自行檢視憲法的傲慢避責,正是實質破壞憲政運作的原因。"},{"start":140,"end":161,"text":"一個負責廉政與公職人員利益衝突調查的機關,面對國會依憲法的要求,到立法院說明,其內部是否出席的決策層級、出席的標準和會議紀錄時,卻連運作程序都不敢透明化。"},{"start":161,"end":174,"text":"當監察院自己都用制度在包裝傲慢,規避憲政運作中與國會的連結,我們又怎麼能夠去指望他能夠監督其他的機關呢?"},{"start":174,"end":180,"text":"這完全陷入了誰來監督,監督者的一個憲政荒謬。"},{"start":180,"end":195,"text":"這樣的避責現象正凸顯了現今監察院體制性的困境,因為他糾正案缺乏強制力,彈劾案仍需要送懲戒法院。"},{"start":195,"end":203,"text":"無形傷中就形成了無效的一個監督,而且他也難確保中立。"},{"start":204,"end":229,"text":"我們從他政治性的辦案和提名機制,讓他難以擺脫憲政的酬庸陰影,看到,最後他則是疊床架屋,每年消耗數億的預算,功能與國會調查權的高度重疊,完全淪為機關榮最跟權力的空轉。"},{"start":230,"end":252,"text":"猶有剩者,監察院本來應該是要監督百官的糾正為師,但現在多位監察委員遭質疑濫用公務車,內部調查卻是輕輕的放下,形成了言語綠他寬以帶己的荒謬現象。"},{"start":252,"end":259,"text":"當監督者自己都監督不了,我們就必須追問監察院是否還有獨立存在的必要。"},{"start":259,"end":266,"text":"但是廢除監察院不是故意要放棄監督,而是要讓監督回歸正軌。"},{"start":266,"end":272,"text":"我們主張將監察權回歸三權的體制。"},{"start":272,"end":281,"text":"第一個,是由具有民意基礎的立法院行使完整的國會調查權、聽證權跟審計權,"},{"start":281,"end":289,"text":"比照美國、德國等民主國家的常態,不再讓行政幕僚有避而不達的灰色空間。"},{"start":289,"end":296,"text":"第二,把彈劾跟懲戒權回歸到司法權來進行。"},{"start":297,"end":312,"text":"第三,將財產申報、利益衝突、迴避等陽光法案的業務,重新檢討由獨立的機關來承接,而非用院等級的機關來處理。"},{"start":312,"end":317,"text":"另外,國家人權委員會要依法轉型為獨立機關。"},{"start":317,"end":327,"text":"民主政治的核心跟靈魂必須建立在完整、有效的權責相扶、權力制衡與監督的機制上面。"},{"start":327,"end":340,"text":"當現行體制已經證明無法被監督,也無法有效監督他人時,改革就是我們對於民主最負責的態度。"},{"start":340,"end":351,"text":"因此,我和台灣民眾黨堅持廢除監察院,建立真正權責相扶、高效透明的民主憲政體制。"}]}},"supported_relations":[],"relations":[]}