【作者】 李凌云；

【导师】 黄学贤；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2021， 博士

【摘要】 近年来,行政管理领域中公民向行政机关举报的现象比较突出,一种可称之为“行政举报”的法律制度正在兴起并不断发展。具体而言,行政举报作为典型的信息工具,乃举报人就他人涉嫌违法等事项予以披露并由行政机关作出规制的制度范畴。举报人通过信息共享突破治理的功能区隔,畅通了“公民—政府”之间的信息交流渠道,据此构建秩序行政下的合作共治格局。也就是说,既然行政机关不足以对海量的执法对象实施全面有效的监管,那么不妨鼓励社会公众参与其中,双方共同治理行政领域的不当行为。针对这项重要的行政法律制度,本文运用行政法视角对其中的学理、规范、体系、运行及优化之道展开全景式论述。行政举报是行政领域的一个重要且繁复的法律现象。行政举报已成为行政执法信息来源的有益渠道,工商、食品、税务、交通等多数行政领域都存在举报事项,具体呈现出公益性、广泛性、交互性等特点。从制度起源而言,现代意义上的行政举报实际上与历史上的检举、举报、揭发文化有很深渊源,并深受改革开放以来的检察举报等制度之影响。在法律属性维度上,行政举报可界定为一种协助或督促行政机关履行法定职责的法律行为,在事实层面能够影响到公法效果。就功能主义的现实情境而言,行政举报能够弥补行政执法资源的有限性,丰富权益诉求的表达方式,推动协同型行政监管的体系构建。在学理层面,行政举报具备公私合作、公民参与行政、行政效能等深厚多元的学理基础。在法律关系视域下,行政法律关系对行政举报复数主体的利益结构具有阐释效果。作为制度事实的行政举报法律制度,要以基础性的规范依据为先决条件。由此才能明确举报人的权利来源,厘定行政机关履行举报处理职责的依据。行政举报法律体系是关键准据,不妨着眼于宪法—法律规范—其他行政规范性文件等层面的规范链条。第一,宪法依据方面。学界关于“行政举报是宪法赋予公民的一项权利”的观点并不鲜见,普遍将宪法第4 1条作为创设行政举报的现实依据。但是,第41条规定的公民监督权只设定了公民对公权力进行监督的权利,与行政举报的参与性功能难以契合,故从该条款推导行政举报权存在一定疑惑。结合宪制机理之解释,认为现行宪法第2条“参与管理权”条款、第27条“倾听意见”条款以及第35条的“言论自由”条款,才是推导行政举报宪法依据的规范群。第二,法律规范方面。从行政机关的立场来说,处理举报事项应存在充足的法律依据,如需要考量该事项所涉领域或行业范围是否属于法定职责。当前法律规范中“举报”概念存在多维表达,且体现为分散管理型的立法模式,此种模式既受经验主义立法思维所致,也受现实行政管理事务特征影响。第三,其他行政规范依据方面。面对数量日增的举报事件,中央和地方各级政府已制发了大量的举报类行政规范性文件,为举报事项之治理提供了依据。依文件处理举报具备“文件政治”、填补立法效力的现实动因,且面临“不规范”难题的挑战。基于规范依据的梳理,可持续搭建行政举报的法律制度框架。倘若欠缺相应制度体系来统筹行政机关的职能与举报人的关切,那么行政机关与举报人的合作链条就不可能牢固。在形式结构上,行政举报存在“个体知晓举报信息—个体向行政机关披露—行政机关予以处理”的逻辑构成。从现有的举报过程观察,一个较为完整的行政举报法律制度体系,至少包括举报人启动、行政机关进行处理以及实现机制支撑三个方面。举报主体与客体比较广泛,举报人可针对违法行为、影响公共利益的失当行为、危及公共利益的客观事实等事项进行举报,并且据此按不同标准对事项进行类型化。行政举报指向的事项怎样识别与处理,是制度价值实现的根本落脚点,故相应的受理、调查、处置等程序性规则是必不可少的保证。为激励举报人行为,确保制度体系长效、有序、规范地发展,与之匹配的实现机制亦不可或缺。行政举报是一把典型的“双刃剑”,虽然带来的制度优势比较明显,但引发的负面效应亦不容忽视。借助法社会学的研究理路,可考察行政举报对社会现实的塑造作用,从社会秩序变化趋势去考察制度运行的现实图景。整体上来看,行政举报取得了较好的实施效果,如经由各地行政机关推行措施,俨然形成了一种“行政举报型社会治理模式”,行政机关与举报人在互动中形成一套新的规则体系,回应了社会治理创新需求。不过,该项法律制度也面临着明显不足,尤其是举报人与行政机关之间从合作转向冲突。这种冲突分为隐性与显性两个层面,隐性冲突是双方之间一方消极违背对方的行为,显性冲突则体现为双方在执法争议和行政纠纷上的矛盾。为推动行政举报法律制度的良性发展,应针对性提出系统的优化方案,实现在合作轨道上有效运行的目标。在此之前,须从制度定位与本质特征的角度入手,倡导“保障论”与“界限论”的双重价值理性。“保障论”的旨趣在于以保障促进举报人的参与,经由参与机制推动社会治理效果的达成;而“界限论”是宣示行政举报的有限性,承认举报人与行政机关的合作限度。关于该制度的优化路径,基本策略可遵照“立法→行政→司法”的步骤而展开。一是立法层面,行政举报立法理念应当从分散转向统一,适时制定专门性法律,有效引导各类主体行为的法治化。二是行政层面,围绕行政举报处理“最佳性”的目标展开制度优化,通过管理与政治的双重途径去实现最符合行政目的之状态。三是司法层面,运用合法性审查规则对原告资格、受案范围、诉权行使等问题展开论述,为监督行政、权利救济及冲突解决提供有效的司法指引。更多还原

【Abstract】 In recent years,the phenomenon of citizens reporting to administrative organs in the field of administration is more prominent.A legal system called "administrative whistleblowing"is rising and developing.Specifically,as a typical information tool,administrative whistleblowing is a system category in which the informant discloses other people’s suspected violation of the law and the administrative organ makes regulations.Informants break through the functional division of governance through information sharing,and unblock the information exchange channel between "citizens and government",so as to build a cooperative co governance pattern under order administration.In other words,since the administrative organs are not enough to implement comprehensive and effective supervision on a large number of law enforcement objects,it is advisable to encourage the public to participate in them and jointly govern the misconduct in the administrative field.In view of this important administrative legal system,this paper uses the perspective of administrative law to make a panoramic discussion on its theory,norms,system,operation and optimization.Administrative whistleblowing is an important and complicated legal phenomenon in the government governance.Administrative whistleblowing has become a useful channel for information sources of administrative law enforcement.There are reporting matters in most administrative fields,such as industry and commerce,food,taxation,transportation and so on,which show the characteristics of public welfare,universality and interaction.As far as the origin of the system is concerned,administrative whistleblowing in the modern sense has a deep origin with the culture of reporting,reporting and exposing in history,and is deeply influenced by the procuratorial reporting system since the reform and opening up.In the dimension of legal attribute,administrative whistleblowing can be defined as a legal act to assist or urge administrative organs to perform their statutory duties,which can affect the effect of public law in fact.In terms of the practical situation of functionalism,administrative whistleblowing can make up for the limitation of administrative law enforcement resources,enrich the expression of rights and interests,and promote the construction of collaborative administrative supervision system.In the academic level,administrative whistleblowing has a profound and diverse theoretical foundation,such as public-private cooperation,citizen participation in administration,administrative efficiency and so on.From the perspective of legal relationship,administrative legal relationship has an interpretive effect on the interest structure of the subject of administrative whistleblowing.As a matter of fact,the legal system of administrative whistleblowing should be based on basic norms.Only in this way can we make clear the source of the rights of the informant and determine the basis for the administrative organ to perform the duty of reporting.The legal system of administrative whistleblowing is the key basis.We can focus on the normative chain of constitution,legal norms and other administrative normative documents.First,the basis of the constitution.It is not uncommon for academic circles to hold the view that "administrative whistleblowing is a right granted to citizens by the constitution".Article 41 of the constitution is generally regarded as the realistic basis for the creation of administrative whistleblowing.However,the right of supervision stipulated in Article 41 only stipulates the right of citizens to supervise the public power,and there are some doubts in deriving the right of administrative whistleblowing.Combined with the analysis of the constitutional mechanism,the article 2 "right to participate in management" clause,Article 27 "listening to opinions" clause and Article 35 "freedom of speech" clause of the constitution are the norm group for deriving the constitutional basis of administrative whistleblowing.Second,legal norms.From the standpoint of the administrative organ,there should be sufficient legal basis for handling the reported matter,such as whether the field or industry involved in the matter is a statutory duty.At present,the concept of"reporting" in legal norms has multi-dimensional expression,which is reflected in the legislative mode of decentralized management.This mode is not only caused by empirical legislative thinking,but also affected by the characteristics of practical administrative affairs.Third,the basis of other administrative norms.In the face of the increasing number of reported incidents,the central and local governments at all levels have issued a large number of administrative normative documents,which provide a basis for the governance of reported matters.Handling reports according to documents has the realistic motivation of "document politics" and filling in the legislative effect,and also faces the challenge of"non-standard" problem.Based on the combing of the normative basis,we can build the legal system framework of administrative whistleblowing.If there is no corresponding system to coordinate the functions of administrative organs and the concerns of informers,the cooperation chain between administrative organs and informers will not be strong.As far as the formal structure is concerned,there is a logical structure of "individual knows the information of the report-individual discloses it to the administrative organ-the administrative organ deals with it".From the existing reporting process,a relatively complete legal system of administrative whistleblowing includes at least three aspects:the initiation of informants,the handling of administrative organs and the support of mechanism.The subject and object of the report are relatively extensive.The informant can report illegal acts,improper acts affecting public interests,objective facts affecting public interests,etc.,and classify the matters according to different standards.How to identify and deal with the matters pointed to by the administrative whistleblowing is the fundamental foothold of realizing the value of the system,so the corresponding procedural rules of acceptance,investigation and disposal are essential guarantee.In order to encourage the behavior of informers and ensure the long-term,orderly and standardized development of the system,the matching realization mechanism is also indispensable.Administrative whistleblowing is a typical "double-edged sword".Although it brings obvious institutional advantages,its side effects can not be ignored.With the help of the research theory of Sociology of law,we can examine the shaping effect of administrative whistleblowing on social reality,and examine the realistic prospect of system operation from the changing trend of social order.On the whole,the implementation of administrative whistleblowing has achieved good results,such as gradually expanding the scope of whistleblowing,whistleblowing behavior is more positive.Through the implementation of measures by local administrative organs,it seems that a "social governance model of administrative whistleblowing" has been formed.In the interaction between administrative organs and informants,a new set of rules system has been formed,which responds to the needs of social governance innovation.However,the legal system also faces obvious deficiencies,especially the change from cooperation to conflict between informers and administrative organs.This kind of conflict can be divided into two levels:implicit conflict and explicit conflict.Implicit conflict is the behavior of one side against the other side,while explicit conflict is the contradiction between the two sides in law enforcement disputes and administrative disputes.In order to promote the sound development of the legal system of administrative whistleblowing,we should put forward a systematic optimization scheme to achieve the goal of effective operation on the track of cooperation.Before that,we should start from the perspective of system positioning and essential characteristics,and advocate the dual value rationality of "security theory" and "boundary theory".The purpose of "security theory" is to promote the participation of informants through security,and promote the achievement of social governance effect through participation mechanism;while"boundary theory" is to declare the limitation of administrative whistleblowing and recognize the cooperation limit between informants and administrative organs.As for the optimization path of the system,the basic strategy can follow the steps of "legislation→administration→judicature".First,at the legislative level,the legislative concept of administrative whistleblowing should be changed from decentralization to unification,and special laws should be formulated timely to effectively guide the legalization of all kinds of subject behaviors.Second,at the administrative level,the system optimization is carried out around the goal of "the best" of handling administrative reports,and the state most in line with the administrative purpose is achieved through the dual ways of management and politics.Third,at the judicial level,it discusses the plaintiffs qualification,the scope of cases,the exercise of the right of action and other issues by using the legitimacy review rules,so as to provide effective judicial guidance for the supervision of administration,right relief and conflict resolution.更多还原