中國大陸從民主國家引進「聽證會」制度，是一種「有組織、有結構」的表達機制。要瞭解中國「聽證會」制度的全貌與意涵，首先掌握民主國家聽證理論，並在「民主政治」、「自然正義」、「正當法律程序」及「公開與公民參與」等立論原則，來加以探索民主國家對聽證之成因與面貌。另在文獻蒐集與探討中，從1993年至今，完整編織中國「聽證會」的發展背景動機和歷史演變，透過聽證理論與「聽證會」發展之比對分析，藉以說明中國與民主國家在「聽證」觀點上之差異。 在現行中國聽證會制度之法制規範上，從「聽證會」在中國大陸司法、行政立法過程之相關會議資料，和中央、地方近年來之施行情形，探求其制度正處於何種地位，瞭解中國「聽證會」之地位後，陸續歸納中國憲法內相關對聽證的立憲基礎，還有全國人大、全國人大常委會、國務院及地方等行政立法機關，在司法、行政立法聽證的法律規章之聽證法源依據，進而分析聽證在大陸的適法範圍及功能。另由司法賠償、行政立法及行政處罰之聽證個案實例，進一步深層瞭解「聽證會」實際操作面向。 文內採用文獻探討法，就已蒐集中國大陸司法、行政立法聽證之意涵、種類、政策基礎、規範原則、運作程序等百篇文獻，對與主題有關的縱向因素之因果關係加以整理、掌握，並藉以分析聽證之本質內涵，在透由探討與發現問題，將有系統對中國聽證會在司法聽證、行政立法聽證及民主政治等方面的問題影響加以整理說明。最後提出結論與建議，以提供問題解決方向。 / Communist China adopts the hearing system, a well organized and structured expression mechanism, from the western democracies in 1993. With this background, understanding the hearing theories of the western democracies becomes the prerequisite to study the full context and implications of China’s hearing system. Those who are interested in the creation of the western hearing system must realize that the system is based on theories such as democracy, natural justice, due process of law, and public civil participation. With thorough researches of documents and analyses, the motivation and history of China’s hearing system shall be studied and the differences between China and the western democracies shall be analyzed by comparing the theories and evolution of the two hearing systems. In order to identify with the role of China’s current hearing system, related materials collected from several important meetings carried out by China’s judicial and administrative-legislative authorities, as well as implementation of hearing at the central and local levels are investigated. When this investigation is concluded, how hearing system functions within the scope of China’s constitution will be induced. Furthermore, how hearings are functioned and supported by China’s existing laws when they are performed at National People Congress (NPC), NPC’s Standing Committee, State Council and local authorities will also be examined. Case studies of hearings regarding to judicial compensation, administrative-legislative and administrative penalties are provided to further help understand the real performance of the hearing activities in China. The literature review methodology is taken on in this thesis . Over one hundred periodicals, papers, and documents on the subject of hearing are collected and studied. These materials include the definition, types, principles, norms and procedures of China’s judicial and administrative-legislative hearings. By studying the literature and identifying the cause and effect, a systematic explanation of the correlation between China’s judicial and administrative-legislative hearing structure and democracy is concluded and possible solutions are recommended.

隨著行政任務之多元化，政府的職責不僅消極地保障人民權益不受違法侵害，並積極推動重大公共建設，提供人民生活上之照顧，為達成前述任務，政府必須擬定計畫，合理分配有限資源。由於性質重要且達一定規模之重大公共建設，於開發過程中，常事涉不同利益關係人及不同行政機關之權限，在計畫未公布實施前，應經計畫擬定、聽證舉行及計畫裁決等程序後，始可妥善有效實施。此種確定計畫程序之作用，在於藉由程序之參與，廣納各方意見，期考慮更為周詳，使最終確定之計畫內容合理妥善可行，俾於具體實施時可順利進行；並提高行政效率，建立民眾對公共政策良好之觀感及信賴，達成公部門推動政策之目標。 我國現行規範行政計畫之法制，僅有行政程序法第163、164條區區2條文，其中164條中心理念，緣自德國計畫確定程序之引進，就一定地區土地之特定利用或重大公共設施之設置，所為之計畫設計及規劃程序。在德國計畫確定程序不僅法規範完善，且行之有年，在程序集中及減少日後爭訟之層面，具有一定效果。法務部雖於2001年3月基於行政程序法第164條第2項之授權而嘗試訂定「行政計畫擬訂、確定、修訂及廢棄程序辦法草案」，就計畫之擬定、聽證程序之進行、計畫之確定等相關程序為詳細規範，賦予最終之確定計畫裁決一定之法律效力，以期達到程序集中的效果，然本辦法草案迄今仍未完成立法付之實施，無法發揮實質功效。 本研究之目的，在探討國家推動重大公共建設時，所面臨的最大挑戰-如何作出令人信服之決策，此緣於權力來源之正當性、決策內容與程序之合理性外；亦須思考公部門對於私部門或環保團體之不信任、民眾過於追逐開發行為所產生之暴利期待、環境與經濟之連動性及國家中長程之發展方向與目標等人文議題，並參考國外案例，融合本國風土人文予以克服與解決。另試圖將行政計畫確定程序運用在臺北市廣慈開發案，以行政程序所追求之民主、效能及公開之原則，解決其所面臨之困難。

自1980年以來，台灣企業逐漸於國際商業競爭上嶄露頭角的同時，也開始面臨智慧財產保護課題。 2003年3月，聯發科為全球獲利最高的IC設計公司，美商DVD播放機控制晶片供應商ESS正向系統客戶送樣（預計4月開始出貨），以增加客戶採用之可能性的同時，在美國北加州聯邦法院向聯發科提起專利侵權訴訟，禁止聯發科使用DVDPlayer單晶片（SoC）播放機銷往美國；6月初，傳出ESS與聯發科達成和解，金額從數千萬美元到1億美元，消息傳出，聯發科股價一度下滑近10%，市場與法人同步傳出聯發科將面臨官司敗訴，需賠償1億美元，據悉聯發科高層對消息提前曝光相當震怒，傳出對消息外露人員處以解職。6月中，聯發科宣布與美商ESS簽訂技術授權合約，未來2年內，聯發科將支付9,000萬美元的權利金。 2004年3月，美商Zoran向美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）控告，聯發科侵犯CD/DVD控制器設計架構，以及直接連結IDE/ATA資料埠的主端界面控制器等相關三項專利權，隨後又向美國洛杉磯地方法院提起專利侵權訴訟，除請求賠償金以外，亦要求美國法院發出禁制令，命令聯發科之侵權相關產品不得輸往美國；聯發科則回應，因尚未收到任何正式文件，委由美國律師了解，俟收到正式文件後再對外說明；同年7月，聯發科也在美國德拉瓦聯邦地方法院對Zoran提起專利侵權訴訟，2005年9月ITC判定聯發科敗訴，市場傳聞聯發科已提列準備金8億元；2006年1月，雙方達成和解，聯發科支付8,500萬美元權利金給Zoran，侵蝕聯發科該年獲利約10％。 而跨國專利侵權訴訟有別於傳統訴訟的特殊性在於(1)跨國性：涉及於不同國家企業、不同國之涉訟地、不同國之市場與生產。因在跨國企業之布局運籌下，訴訟地必定尋求最有影響力之地點，通常為美國及中國，案例中由於ESS及Zoran均為美商，因此在美國提起對聯發科之訴訟；(2)計畫性：為達成商業目的而規劃之訴訟，案例中，ESS對聯發科基於競爭關係而提出訴訟，目的在於增加訂單、減少競爭；Zoran對聯發科則基於增加營收之目的，要求侵權損害賠償，作為過去一年之營運虧損。換言之，為自己或客戶增加營收及訂單、減少競爭，為其訴訟計畫之最終目的；(3)規模性：為了增加影響力與壓力，往往在許多國家同時提起，對象從侵權者擴及其下游客戶，攻擊點既廣且深；(4)繼續性：訴訟期間，影響客戶對其之信任及訴訟管理能力形象；案例中，聯發科雖有傲人之獲利能力，然而在與ESS一案中，卻顯出訴訟管理能力之薄弱，導致Zoran效而尤之，此形象一旦形成，勢必將為聯發科帶來更多不必要之侵權訴訟紛爭；(5)組織性：將訴訟工具與企業組織做連結，融入組織文化以全面改善，並由此發展一套標準作業流程，案例中Zoran習慣性地在提起訴訟前，先於市場發放消息，造成市場恐慌以形成其客戶之壓力，並使該壓力轉嫁至侵權對象，使其容易屈服；(6)資源性：跨國專利侵權訴訟必須具備以下基本要件，「錢多」因需支付龐大之訴訟費、律師費、專家費、賠償金及權利金、並有能力迴避設計及改變模具，並需有喪失市場及流失營收之心理準備。「人多」因訴訟之故，需具備詳盡之專利資料庫建立、調查產業/技術/產品/競爭者分析等資料為因應，並有訴訟規劃人員、應訴人員、支援人員等龐大後勤單位。「命長」因企業必須有能力支撐營運，不致在訴訟過程之謠言紛擾中倒下，案例中，均有市場傳言紛擾之問題，足以說明。 自1980年以來，台灣廠商歷經歐洲、美國、日本等大廠商之專利侵權訴訟逼迫下，付出了昂貴的代價，因此開始投入鉅額資金為研發、申請專利，近十年來台灣企業在美國、台灣、中國所申請的專利申請費用便高達了一千九百多億台幣，加上遭受了至少一百多件跨國專利訴訟的訴訟費用，便高達兩千億之多，尚不包括每年支付的權利金也高達台幣一千五百多億台幣，足以養活台積電兩萬名員工及影響四十七萬名股東生活長達兩年之久，足見台灣廠商在研發及專利申請方面之投入程度及所花費心血之鉅。 然而，審視台灣企業近十年在專利侵權訴訟方面之表現，發現：（1）每年均有影響台灣產業發展的專利侵權訴訟發生；（2）遍及每個產業；（3）以被告居多；（4）和解的以付出鉅額權利金居多；（5）打完訴訟的以敗訴居多。 由此可見，台灣企業付出昂貴的研發費用、專利申請費用之後，並沒有改善台灣企業年年被告、年年支付鉅額權利金、損害賠償金的宿命，在高度的付出之下，卻沒有改善在國際研發方面的地位，顯然付出與獲得顯不成比例。 智慧財產的創造、保護、管理，其中的費用包括研發費用、專利申請費用、訴訟費用、權利金及損害賠償等，美國企業是在研發、專利申請支出了龐大的費用，然而可以在訴訟費用、權利金及損害賠償中賺回來，亦即至少符合投資報酬率，然而，反觀台灣企業，不但在研發、專利申請時支出了龐大的費用，在訴訟費用及權利金、損害賠償方面，不但沒有賺回來，反而必需支付更多的金錢，顯然的，台灣企業在跨國專利侵權訴訟管理的方法論上出了極大的問題，而有立即改變之必要！ 有別於過去文獻侷限於「文獻與法規的翻譯」、「片段案例的選擇討論」、「過多理論的探討」、更幾乎沒有人探討重要的「中國專利侵權訴訟」，以致於見樹不見林，徒有理論而不會操作，消耗過多精力與資源於繁瑣而不重要的法律細節，卻無法猜透國際企業專利侵權訴訟背後的策略運籌，導致不能真正打贏過一場戰爭。 因此，本文提出一套跨國專利侵權訴訟管理之機制，橫跨最重要的兩個世界市場—美國、中國為主，法律面提供詳盡完整的如警告信發送、起訴、審前會議、馬克曼聽證會、發現程序、審判程序、專利無效程序、訴前救濟、保全措施等訴訟程序、制度規定與流程架構；企業管理面提供包含研發、生產製造、市場行銷、財務、會計、租稅、外部律師、專家、公證人等全面性管理策略，以大量實證的方式分析整理、以豐富的跨國專利侵權訴訟實戰經驗寫成，期望能使台灣產業真正打贏一場戰爭。 / Since 1980, Taiwan companies had been sued by European, U.S.A., Japan companies for patent infringements and forced to pay out enormously. Therefore, they started to invest tremendous amount of money and resources in research & development (R&D), as well as in patent prosecution. Last decade, Taiwan companies had already spent up to 190 billions New Taiwan Dollar (NTD) in U.S.A., Taiwan, and China patent prosecution and maintenance fee. Yet, if added up the cost of hundreds of transnational patent litigations, the total amount was up to 200 billions NTD and it did not include Taiwan companies had to pay out 150 billons NTD royalty yearly. 190 billions NTD for example could provide for twenty thousand employees and influence 470 thousand shareholders in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). This certainly exhibited that Taiwan companies had been invested magnificently in R&D and patent prosecution. However, examining the outcome of patent infringement litigations of Taiwan companies in last decade, it shows: (1) every year there are critical patent infringement litigations which influence the development of Taiwan industry; (2) litigations are throughout all important Taiwan industries; (3) in most of time, Taiwan companies are defendant , not plaintiff; (4) Taiwan companies reach the settlement with paying a great sum of indemnification and royalty mostly; (5) most Taiwan companies lose in the litigation. As the above described, although Taiwan companies have invested enormous resources in R&D and patent prosecution, it does not change the situation which every year Taiwan companies are sued for patent infringement, have to pay out a great sum of indemnification and royalty, and certainly still stand in indifferent position of the R&D value chains. After all, what Taiwan companies obtain is not what they expect from their investments. The cost of creation, protection, management of intellectual property include R&D, patent prosecution, patent litigation, royalty, and indemnification. Although U.S.A. companies invest a lot in R&D and patent prosecution, they usually earn back from patent litigation, royalty, and indemnification. However, Taiwan companies not only invest tremendous money and resources in R&D and patent prosecution, but also pay out much for royalty or the outcome of patent litigation. Obviously, Taiwan companies have some serious problems in their methodology of management transnational patent infringement litigations, thus it is very crucial to change their methodology immediately! Taiwan theses and studies usually fall into “translating foreign papers, laws and regulations ”, “discussing the choice of some parts of cases”, or “studying theories excessively”, also almost no inquires into patent litigations in China. Consequently, the discussions and studies of patent litigations in Taiwan have never brought out the whole picture and practical actions of strategic management of patent litigations. Obviously, most studies spend too much efforts and resources on legal details and ignore the most important matter which is how international companies control and manage transnational patent litigation. As a result, Taiwan companies never learn how to win a patent litigation war. Therefore, this thesis is different from other Taiwan theses because this thesis provides a mechanism of managing transnational patent infringement litigations. Prominently, this thesis covers patent litigation procedures and management in the most significant markets in the world—U.S.A. and China. In the legal aspect, this thesis provides information on the complete litigation procedure in U.S.A. and China which includes cease and desist letter , service, pre-trial conference, markman hearing, discovery, trial, patent validity procedure, pre-trial injunction, protective injunction; in the management aspect, this thesis provides complete management strategies which shall be carried out as the regular basis and during a patent litigation while managing R&D, manufacture, marketing, finance, accounting, taxing, law firm and lawyer, expert, judge performing notarization. Most importantly, this thesis analyzes enormous patent litigation cases and industrial information, therefore this thesis is able to provide the first and never-seen practical structure for Taiwan companies to win a patent litigation war.

本文研究行政院下全國性公民投票審議委員會（下簡稱「審議委員會」）之運作；審議委員會依據公民投票法（下簡稱「公投法」）創設至本文2012年4月完稿截止，共經歷兩屆任期，已召開16次正式會議，並對12次人民提出之全國性公民投票案做成認定是否合於法律規定之決議；審議委員會係我國公投立法者特殊之創見，也是公投法立法過程中政黨協商之產物，因此，自第一屆審議委員會組成以來，其運作便無法擺脫政治爭議問題，即便第二屆審議委員會已依據大法官釋字645號解釋確立其合乎我國憲法之行政地位，有關審議委員會存廢之爭論仍沒有間斷過。 為探求審議委員會存廢爭議之答案，本文從靜態的制度面向及動態的實務面向加以研究，審議委員會運作之「價值」；本文以我國憲政權力分立制度為論述之基準，先從我國有關公民投票及行政程序之法律、制度變遷角度，探討審議委員會、乃至於包括審議委員會、中央選舉委員會及行政院訴願審議委員會在內之「行政上全國性公民投票審議機制」，其創設之合憲性，但主要上，本文還欲藉由審議委員會開會之實務案例研究，即歸納審議委員會16次正式會議過程之爭點，深入審議委員會的運作核心－如何審議人民提出之全國性公民投票提案。 本文認為，審議委員會不應貿然以公投法修法廢除之，只要審議委員會在審議過程中展現其「獨立性」，則現階段我國公民票制度之落實，仍有審議委員會發揮「協助人民有意義的行使創制、複決權」及「過濾人民提出之全國性公民投票提案」功能的必要，且可供公投法修正方向之鑑借；本文僅屬「初探」之研究，隨著審議委員會及有關其運作之司法實務經驗增加，相信審議委員會存廢之爭論亦會趨明朗。 關鍵詞：行政院公民投票審議委員會、大法官釋字645號解釋、中央選舉委員會、行政院訴願審議委員會、行政獨立性 / This paper is about a research of the operation of Referendum Review Commission of Executive Yuan (hereinafter referred to as “the Referendum Commission"). Until April 2012 the Referendum Commission has held 16 formal meetings and has reviewed 12 proposals for national referendum to determine whether those proposals meet the relevant provisions in the Referendum Act. Due to the fact that the establishment of the Referendum Commission is the result of negotiations between political parties, the operation of the Referendum Commission constantly causes controversy and the argument that the Referendum Commission should be abolished never ends even though the Judical Yuan Interpretation No. 645 has confirmed that the establishment of the Referendum Commission does not contradict the Constitutional of the Rupublic of China This paper discusses the basis of separation of powers in our constitutional system, starting with reviwing relevant laws and systems in respect of referedum and administrative procedures. Furthermore, the constitutionality of the establishment of relevant referendum review mechanism is examined, including the Referendum Commission, Central Election Commission and the Petitions and Appeals Committee of the Executive Yuan. This article also summarizes the issues raised in the 16th formal meeting of the Referendum Commission. This paper is of the opinion that the Referendum Commission should not be rashly abolished by amending the Referendum Act as long as the Referendum Commission is able to maintain its independancy in the process of exmination and that the existance of the Referendum Commission is necessary as it could assist people to exercise their tights of initiative and referendum and could ensure the smooth operation of the Referendum Act.

司法院釋字第520號解釋於理由書指出：「基於法治國原則，縱令實質正當亦不可取代程序合法」，即一語道出程序正義之重要性。 民間參與公共建設具專業性、複雜性及高風險性、隔代性、利益衝突等特性，在政府與民間合作理念的推動下，法律規定模式已呈現由「條件式」的模式轉向「目的式」模式，致使政府合作對象的甄審（選）成為一種高度專業趨向之判斷，並且可能陷於「決策於未知之中」的困境。民間參與公共建設的推動上，除技術層面之實體審查標準外，實應認真思考面對決策的程序問題，藉由程序之提升，用以補足實體規範的不足。據此，有關引進民間參與公共建設之法規，甄審程序選出的最佳締約對象、最優申請案件或最優申請人「是否即屬適當」，應思考甄審（或評選）程序與組織設計，是否妥適。 本文擬由正當法律程序於美國及日本之發展出發，藉以了解其規範基礎與發展情形，並分析我國司法實務有關正當法律程序原則之解釋，理解我國對於正當法律程序之內涵與要求。其後聚焦行政實務上經常引用作為民間參與公共建設案件辦理依據之獎參條例、採購法及促參法，就其甄審、評選或評審程序與爭議處理程序檢視正當法律程序實踐情形。 本於基本權保障意旨及法律承認權利之保障，基本上本文認同至少應有一最低限度之保障（即聽證權）。至於其他要求為何？本於民間參與公共建設之興建或營運，涉及政府有限資源之分配及申請人(營業自由、契約自由)與使用者（生命、身體、財產）之基本權保障相關，應可由司法院釋字第384號解釋及釋字第709號解釋推導出「組織」要求，而其他如公正作為(迴避、禁止程序外接觸)、受告知權、說明理由及資訊公開，亦正是落實組織適法與聽證權，所不可或缺之要素。