本研究最主要之目的乃探討依法行政要求在公務人員為民服務過程產生的影響與改善的策略。以臺北市大安區戶政事務所為個案，進行實證研究。本研究根據個案進行研究結果與分析討論後之發現，從認知、權衡原因、民眾之評價、影響及認知落差之情況及改善策略分別整理出其結論。 一、就「依法行政」與「公共服務品質」之認知： （一） 依法行政是人民與政府間共同認知的最小公約數 （二） 公共服務品質的認知已隨時代演變，而有所提升 二、「依法行政」與「公共服務品質」之間權衡因素： （一） 權衡因素以是否造成損害為優先考量。 （二） 是否具有裁量權是權衡關鍵。 （三） 在不可歸責事由的情況下，採取對民眾有利之公共服務。 三、專業程度與權宜方式會影響民眾對服務品質之評價：若戶政人員不知有其他法規之權宜方式，而令民眾感到專業性不足，民眾亦有可能給予不滿意之評價。 四、「依法行政」對「公共服務品質」之影響 從正面影響來看：（一）避免違法亂紀，穩定公共服務品質、（二）放心提供服務、（三）提供完整資訊，減少抱怨情緒、（四）創造雙贏。 從負面影響來看：（一）期望落差而產生質疑及不滿、（二）僵化與冷酷無情之誤解、（三）法令不合時宜或限制過多時，無法積極保障民眾利益、（四）法令多如牛毛，民眾難以完全瞭解法令所有規定。 五、「公共服務品質」落差因素與改善策略 （一）從民眾本身之因素來看，落差會因為：1.因不能辦理而情緒失控、2.無法提出法定證明文件、3.涉及其他機關申請案件的壓力因素，而受到影響。在改善策略上：政府亦應透過多種管道建立民眾尊重公務人員之觀念，增加公務人員投入的動機與熱忱。主動為民眾向上級機關請示或建議准許民眾之請求。 （二）從戶政機關之因素來看，落差會因為：政策因素、戶役政資訊系統設定因素而有影響。在改善策略上：透過教育訓練公務人員在溝通過程中，為民眾設法尋求可行之方式。 / The main purpose of the study is to explore influence and the improvement strategy generated by administration pursuant to law in the process of requesting public servants to serve citizens. This empirical research is conducted with Household Registration Office, Daan District, Taipei City as a case.After conducting a research and having an analysis discussion pursuant to a case, the study separately arranges conclusion from cognition, weighing reason, appraisal, influence and cognition drop of the common people and improvement strategy. 1. Cognition of “administration pursuant to law” and “public service quality”: (1) Administration pursuant to law is the maximum common divisor of common cognition between citizens and the government. (2) Cognition of public service quality has risen with times evolution. 2. Weighing factors of “administration pursuant to law” and “public service quality”: (1) The weighing factor takes whether to cause damage into prior consideration. (2) Discretion is critical to weighing. (3) Under circumstances of not attributable particulars of a matter, adopt public service beneficiary to the common people. 3. The professional extent and way of weighing will influence appraisal of the common people to service quality: If household registration personnel does not know weighing way of other regulations to as to make the common people feel insufficiency of profession, the common people may also give an unsatisfied appraisal. 4. Influence of “administration pursuant to law” and “public service quality”: In the view of positive influence: (1) avoid breach of law and disturbance to discipline to stabilize public service quality, (2) provide service at ease, (3) provide complete information to release complaint emotion, and (4) create a win-win situation. In the view of negative influence: (1) an expectant drop generates query and dissatisfaction, (2) misunderstanding of petrifaction and grim apathy, (3) an ordinance is out of date or has too many limits and is unable to aggressively secure benefit of the common people, (4) an ordinance is so many as the hairs on an ox that the common people have difficulty in completely understanding all the regulations of it. 5. Drop factor and improvement strategy of “public service quality”: (1) From factor of the common people per se, a drop is influenced by: 1. emotion out of control on account of inability to transact, 2. inability to present legal certification document, and 3. involvement in the pressure factor of applying for a case by other agencies. In an improvement strategy, the government shall establish the concept that the common people respect public servants via many kinds of channel to add to motivation and enthusiasm involved of public servants. Instruct automatically to a higher authority for the common people or suggest approving their request. (2) From the factor of household registration, a drop is influenced by a policy factor and setting of household registration information system. In an improvement strategy, public servants get to search for feasible ways for the common people in the process of communication via educational training.

本研究關注中科三期環評訴訟中行政與司法的互動，主要的研究問題是探究行政系統如何回應司法判決？從而分析司法判決對於行政系統產生什麼影響？綜觀中科三期環評爭議，隨著后里農民提起行政訴訟，讓行政與司法間的攻防與角力就此展開。最高行政法院於2010年判決撤銷中科三期環評結論確定，然而科學園區的開發早已如火如荼展開，面對廠商營運、量產在即，但開發行為的合法性基礎卻被撤銷，迫使行政系統必須做出因應。然而，行政系統並未遵守司法判決「依法行政」，反而持續以「選擇性的作為與不作為」來抵抗司法。 從行政系統的因應可發現儘管行政權強力抗拒司法，但顧及政策必須持續推行，所以實際上亦不可能完全無視判決指摘，仍必須做出「行為上的調整」，包含：重啟環評、加速通過環評，或者又重新決議要進行二階環評等。顯示面對司法審查的進逼迫使其必須「繞道而行」。後續儘管法院再裁定中科三期應停工，行政系統仍未就範，而修修補補、只做半套的環評，不僅仍無法通過法院合法性的檢驗，也致使中科三期演變成「邊施工、邊營運、邊環評」的窘況。本研究主要採取的研究方法包含：次級資料分析、參與觀察、訪談法。 總結而言，本研究將指出行政系統的態度與偏好是司法判決能否落實的關鍵。相反的，司法則沒有什麼權力影響判決如何被執行。然而，儘管司法顯露出侷限性，始終未能有效牽制住中科三期的開發，但中科三期環評訴訟對於行政系統仍產生相當的衝擊與影響，不論是對環評制度實務或對於往後環境運動的發展，這場運動仍是有深遠影響的一股動能。 / As more and more administrative litigations were filed, tensions between the executive and the judiciary branch have been on the rise. By using the environmental impact assessment (EIA) litigation of the 3rd phase expansion of Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP) as a case study, this paper aims to understand the dynamic interaction between these two branches of the state. Particularly, it aims to shed light on how the executive reacts to judicial decisions, and whether judicial review influences bureaucratic practices and if so, its means and the extent of its impact. According to the separation of powers principle, the main function of judicial review is to monitor the legal reach of the executive power. Even as one of the landmark cases in Taiwanese legal history, however, it had been observed that not all judicial decisions are implemented by government agencies following the EIA litigation. Despite the fact that the conclusion of the EIA had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court, the executive resisted this judicial decision by being selective in its enforcement. Nevertheless, the executive must still respond to the judiciary albeit with some “behavioural adjustments” in order to make sure that the development of the 3rd phase expansion of CTSP can be completed as soon as possible. Research methods adopted in this paper is mainly literature review, participant observation and in-depth interview. This case study reveals three major findings. First, the enforcement of judicial decisions is not necessarily obligatory and hinges on the attitudes of the executive. Secondly, the judiciary has very limited powers when it comes to effecting the enforcement of its decisions but its decisions do engender some observable changes (or non-changes) in bureaucratic behaviour which can be attributed to judicial review. Thirdly, although these verdicts failed to stop the abuse of power and allowed the fulfillment of rights, for local residents, cause lawyers, and NGOs, there are still many positive lessons to be taken away from their efforts from which future environmental movements will also likely benefit.