我國公務人員權利保障制度之研究 現代國家和政府的功能，已雖時 代的演進而趨向福利國家的時代，行政事務不但在數量上大量的增加，對 於品質的要求也不斷的提高，使得公務人員的責任逐漸加重。為使公務人 員能安心且盡心為人民服務，加強公務人員權利的保障，以維持高度的工 作士氣與服務品質，已是人事行政的一項重要工作。所以本文希望研究與 我國公務人員權利保障相關的課題。 本文將以特別權力關係理 論的演變為分析的基礎，由公務人員與國家的關係區別公務人員與一般公 民基本權利的差異，並瞭解我國公務人員權利受憲法保障的情況，並就現 行人事法規上的權利，及爭議中公務人員尚未享有的權利，分析現制的缺 失與提出改進之建議。另外並就我國公務人員權利救濟的可能途徑: 大法 官會議解釋、行政內部救濟、行政外部救濟等分析權利救濟的程序、現制 之缺失及提出改進之建議，最後並輔以考試院行政爭訟案例之分析以了解 我國公務人員權利救濟之現況。 本文共分五章分析我國公務人員權利 保障制度之問題: 第一章緒論，敘明研究動機與目的、研究內容、公 務人員之意義與範圍、研究方法與限制、及論文研究架構。 第二章理 論基礎與相關文獻，包括特別權力關係理論、工作平等權、及以行政內部 及外部救濟途徑保障公務人員權利的實現。 第三章我國公務人員之權 利，共分三節: 憲法保障的權利、人事法規上的權利、爭議性的權利。 第四章我國公務人員權利救濟的途徑，共分四節: 大法官會議解釋對公務 人具權利救濟的影響，行政內部救濟途徑，行政外部救濟途徑，案例分析 。 第五章結論。

80年代，我國在解嚴之時，民主化運動與言論自由的保障相得益彰，幾乎同一時期，司法院大法官作成釋字第187號解釋，對於特別權力關係敲響第一記警鐘，大法官逐步正視特別權力關係理論對於權利保障與憲政制度的影響，在司法實踐上似乎邁向突破特別權力關係理論長久以來的桎梏。然探其實際，在大法官與學者相繼對於特別權力關係理論加以解構後，公務員仍未能如同民主化後的一般人民一樣享有「充分且必要」的言論自由。 在面對公務員言論爭議的案件中，我國現行法制透過概括的職務義務對於公務員言論自由施加限制。在具體個案的審查中，實務上顯然並不認為公務員享有與一般人民相同的言論自由，就公務員言論應有的界限與限制的標準，也未建立可茲遵循的審查原則。造成此一現象的原因或許在於特別權力關係尚未真正地被揚棄，學者與實務對於公務員「有權利即有救濟」的闡述，過於囿限於「服公職權」，並且在檢討、揚棄特別權力關係的過程中，仍停留在形式法治國的概念，忽略了基本權利實質限制的檢討。 本文借鏡美國法制的發展，嘗試為我國公務員言論自由的審查提出基本原則。在衡量公務員言論自由保障時，應考量「公務員言論的類型」與「公務員的職務內容」，並以「言論表達的時間與地點」與「言論的公開程度」作為輔助判斷因素，衡酌公務員言論對於政府制度目的的影響。在此一審查模型下，並非所有的公務員言論皆受到一致的限制。 法哲學家Dworkin教授曾經說過，在言論自由的困難案件中，法律人必然需要釐清「憲法為何保障言論自由」這個根本性的問題，才能決定言論自由的困難案件應該如何解決。期待本文的觀察建議可以使得實務在審查公務員言論自由的案件時，意識到公務員言論可能具有的公益面向—使政府資訊自由地流向公眾，促進政府課責與民主審議—從而能夠適當的權衡相關利益，賦予公務員言論應有的保障。 / In the 1980s, as the Martial law was lifted, the level of freedom of speech enjoyed by the people was increased alongside with Taiwan’s democratization movement. In the same period, the Constitutional Court rendered the landmark Interpretation No.187 against the theory of special power relation (besonderes Gewaltverhaltnis, the Theory). The Court was concerned with the negative effect of the Theory on constitutionally protected rights and liberties. However, even though the Court had since made several similar interpretations and seemed to gradually move toward abandoning the Theory entirely, Taiwan’s public employees have not yet been able to enjoy the same level of freedom of speech as the general public has. Under the current legal system, civil servants’ freedom of speech was restricted by broad and generalized professional duties specified in the Public Functionary Service Act. In addition, courts do not take the view that public employees and the general public enjoy the same level of freedom of expression, and do not establish a clear principle to determine what public employees can or cannot speak. Perhaps it is because the Theory has lingered on. Or it is because in the process of abandoning the Theory, courts have paid too much attention on the right to holding public offices and ignored other rights, such as the right to free speech. Learning from the public employee speech jurisprudence in the United States, this thesis tries to articulate some basic principles when reviewing cases concerning civil servants’ freedom of speech. This thesis believes that not all public employee speech should be restricted and suppressed. In deciding whether to protect civil servants’ freedom of expression, courts should consider two main factors: “the type of the speech involved” and “the responsibilities of the civil servant’s position.” In addition, factors such as “the time and place of the speech” and “degree of openness of the speech” should also be taken into account when deciding whether public employee speech has negative impact on the government in fulfilling its responsibilities. Professor Ronald Dworkin, an American legal philosopher, once remarked that in hard cases, “lawyers and judges must try to find a political justification of the First Amendment that fits most past constitutional practice and also provides a compelling reason why we should grant freedom of speech.” The thesis hopes that the observation and suggestion made in this research can help courts be aware of the public interests in protecting public employees’ freedom of speech—ensuring free flow of information from the government to the public and improving government accountability and democratic deliberation. Then can the courts better balance the relevant interests and ultimately afford proper protection to public employee speech.