行政处罚证据原理研究

【作者】 李红枫；

【导师】 朱维究；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2004， 博士

【摘要】 行政处罚以行政相对人的违法行为存在为前提，而违法行为的认定必须有充分、确凿的事实依据。证据制度及规则对于保证行政处罚的公正、有效是至关重要的。重视行政处罚证据的研究，是依法行政的必然要求，也是行政程序法的重要组成部分。行政法学研究体系中对行政处罚证据问题有所涉及，但缺乏全面、系统的探讨和阐释。本文尝试作这方面的努力，意在引起对这一问题的重视，以求抛砖引玉，并对行政处罚证据以及行政证据体系的构建有所裨益。 一、论文的思路和结构 “导言”，明确论文的写作初衷和方法。首先，研究行政处罚证据的原因。对行政处罚证据原理进行系统研究主要是基于以下几方面的考虑：研究行政处罚证据原理是构建行政证据体系的需要；证据对于行政处罚行为具有重要意义；行政处罚证据原理研究是解决实践中证据违法的理论基础。其次，研究行政处罚证据的角度。改变目前从行政诉讼证据出发部分涉及行政证据问题的“倒叙”手法从行政处罚证据入手研究证据制度，笔者认为将更好地发挥行政处罚证据与行政诉讼证据两种证据规则的作用，从源头上有效防止行政处罚违法。在探寻行政诉讼证据与行政处罚证据的异同基础上，归纳、概括不同执法部门行政处罚行为的共性，侧重研究共有的、典型的证据问题，在比较的基础上整体构建行政处罚证据理论体系。最后，论文采用分类研究、实证分析、归纳、比较、列图表等等方法。 第一章“行政处罚证据的理论基础”。首先，对行政处罚证据与行政诉讼证据进行比较。行政处罚与行政诉讼都以调取、收集和运用证据为作出决定之前提，从法律的角度界定，行政处罚证据和行政诉讼证据都是证明有关事实存在与否的根据。分析二者的区别与联系，既有助于正确理解和适用已有的证据规则，也有助于促进新的证据制度的建立和实施。其次，证据法兼有实体法和程序法的双重属性，其中既有关于权利义务关系的规定和确认，也有规范证据活动的过程和方式的内容。因而，证据法的价值要以实体法和程序法的价值取向为基础，同时证据规则作为实体与程序问题的结合点，应当充分发挥协调价值冲突的基本功能。讨论行政处罚证据制度的价值取向，有必要考察行政实体法与行政程序法的基本价值目标和模式，并在此基础上对行政处罚程序进行证据法分析。最后，在借鉴形式理性观念、程序正义理论的基础上，提出行政处罚证据的基本属性包括形成性、程序公平性、准司法性。这既是构建行政处罚证据制度体系的基石，也是从证据法角度分析、评价行政处罚程序的着眼点，在行政处罚取证、举证、质证、认证各环节都应当得到内容摘要充分体现， 第二章“行政处罚证据与案卷排他性原则”‘本章包括“案卷排他性原则”和“听证笔录”两部分内容。笔者认为，行政处罚程序应建立案卷制度，行政处罚证据应当遵循“案卷排他性原则”，该原则是司法权与行政权结合的平衡点，以“禁止单方面接触”为补充，以“官方认知”为例外。已有研究中证据形式都是从表层对证据进行分类，包括物证、书证、证人证言、当事人陈述、视听资料、勘验笔录和现场笔录等，作为行政处罚证据，除具备上述法定形式之外，都应当有一个共同的特征，即以行政案卷为共同的载体。凡是在行政案卷中收录的证据，才可以作为行政处罚证据。笔者认为，在目前七种证据形式之外还应增加一种“听证笔录”。听证笔录是对行政处罚听证过程的实际记录，具有即时性，程序结束之后即无法取得，之后补作必然不具有证明力，鉴于这类证据与案卷排他性原则的密切联系，故在本章重点论述。 第三章“行政处罚证据制度(一):取证”。取证是运用证据的前提，是证据活动中的基础工作和必经阶段，对于查明事实、正确作出行政决定具有重要意义。笔者认为取证的关键在于“合法”，本章着重讨论取证合法的构成要件，包括取证主体、取证程序、取证范围等符合法律规定。取证主体合法，首先要求取证由法定机关或组织负责，根据实际需要可以依法通过行政协助、行政委托的方式完成;其次取证行为应由法定人员具体实施，并遵循职能分离和回避原则。取证程序合法，首先要符合“先取证、后裁决”的一般程序要求，其次要规范取证方式，利用“毒树之果”、“执法圈套”、秘密调查等方式应作具体分析并谨慎采用。取证范围合法，要求对证据关联性、客观性进行初次判断，采用的标准应当低于认证标准，可以称之为“基本标准”，即行政处罚程序中收集的证据应具有“表面相关性”;应来源于调查过程，通过法定的方式、方法收集取得，而不是凭空捏造、主观臆断。 第四章“行政处罚证据制度(二):举证”。行政处罚举证制度是证据活动中的关键环节，具有承前启后的功能。证据制度对于程序具有重要作用，而举证责任如何分配则是证据作用的集中体现。本章从行政程序举证责任分析入手，由一般到特殊，归纳行政处罚举证责任的分配根据及形式，以及与行政诉讼举证责任的关系。举证时限与证据交换制度在诉讼中应用比较广泛，其根本价值在于体现司法程序的公开、公正，同时也有助于?更多还原

【Abstract】 Administrative penalty is based on the existence of the illegal acts of the administrative relative parties. The cognizance of the illegal acts needs sufficient, authentic evidence. The system of evidence is vital to the justness and efficiency of the administrative penalty. It is the requirement of administrative activities to attach importance to the administrative penalty research. Though a few scholars touch upon administrative penalty evidence, there is lack of comprehensive, systemic research. In this treatise, I try to make a pilot study on administrative penalty evidence.Standpoints and frameworkThe purpose of writing is presented in the preface.First, what is the reason of making a study of administrative penalty evidence? My study is based on the following three points:1. Construction of administrative evidence system;2. Significance for administrative penalty;3. Theory foundation of preventing illegal evidence.Second, administrative penalty evidence and administrative litigation evidence are of equal importance in preventing illegal penalty. A lot of administrative penalties are classed to set up the system info of the administrative penalty evidence.Some methods, such as classification, demonstration, comparison, diagram, etc, are used in the treatise.Chapter I "Theory Foundation of Administrative Penalty Evidence" First, I compare administrative penalty evidence with litigation evidence. Second, as the evidence law has double attribute of substantial law and procedure law, it should embody the value of substantial law and procedure law. I think, the basic character of administrative penalty evidence is the foundation of penalty evidence system, which include the character of forming, procedure justness, quasi-justice. Those characters should be embodied in the following activities: obtaining evidence, putting to the proof, interrogation and confirmation of evidence.Chapter II Administrative penalty evidence & Doctrine of rollsThis chapter contains "doctrine of rolls" and "hearing record". In my opinion,system of rolls should be established in the administrative penalty procedure and doctrine of rolls should be observed in the penalty evidence. This doctrine is the balance between judicial power and administrative power. "Banning unilateral contact" is the supplementary of doctrine of rolls and "judicial notice" is the exclusive rules. Administrative penalty evidences are superficially classed as: physical evidence, written evidence, testimony, statements of parties, audiovisual material, inquisition record, spot inspection report. All the administrative penalty evidences should be recorded in the administrative rolls. In my opinion, "hearing record" should be a new kind of evidence.Chapter III "Obtaining Evidence"The activity of obtaining evidence must be lawful. The elements of obtaining evidence include rules on subject of obtaining evidence, procedure in obtaining evidence, scope of obtaining evidence. Legal administrative organs or departments should charge the activities of obtaining evidence. Those activities may be fulfilled through administrative assistance or administrative commission if necessary. Proper subjects have the power to collect evidence. The doctrines of function separation and challenge should be observed. The procedure of obtaining evidence must be lawful. The judgment should be made after having evidence. The methods of collecting evidence should be regulated. The scope of colleting evidence should be lawful. The relevancy and objectivity of evidence should be judged first during the evidence obtaining. However, the standard of judgment should below the standard of confirmation. This standard can be called "basic standard", which means that the evidence should be relevant superficially.Chapter IV Producing EvidenceBurden of producing proof is a crucial problem in the evidence system. The distribution of burden of proof is discussed in this chapter. Limitation of proof and exchange of evidence are widely used in the litigation. A更多还原