iVOD / 170896
本逐字稿內容由 AI 自動生成，可能包含錯誤、遺漏或誤譯之處。請使用者務必與原始影片音訊內容交叉比對，以確保資訊正確性。另可參考立法院日後釋出的正式公報以取得最終權威版本。
林沛祥 @
| Start Time | End Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00,000 | 00:00:05,000 | 好 謝謝主席還有我們在場的同仁跟我們王榮章先生 |
| 00:00:05,000 | 00:00:08,000 | 今天審查王榮章先生的資格 |
| 00:00:08,000 | 00:00:10,000 | 我想跟其他的提名人有一點不一樣 |
| 00:00:10,000 | 00:00:13,000 | 因為您不是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:13,000 | 00:00:15,000 | 您長期投入社會運動 |
| 00:00:15,000 | 00:00:17,000 | 當過民進黨的部分區立法委員 |
| 00:00:17,000 | 00:00:20,000 | 而且已經當了六年的監察委員 |
| 00:00:20,000 | 00:00:23,000 | 正今天您已經是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:23,000 | 00:00:25,000 | 您是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:25,000 | 00:00:27,000 | 您是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:27,000 | 00:00:30,000 | 所以今天我們不能只看您的履歷漂不漂亮 |
| 00:00:30,000 | 00:00:33,000 | 而是要看您的成績單合不合格 |
| 00:00:33,000 | 00:00:36,000 | 那我要從幾個大方向來請教您 |
| 00:00:36,000 | 00:00:39,000 | 王先生您長期投入社會運動 |
| 00:00:39,000 | 00:00:43,000 | 關心財稅改革身心障礙者的權益 |
| 00:00:43,000 | 00:00:45,000 | 我在這邊必須要說 |
| 00:00:45,000 | 00:00:47,000 | 這些經歷都值得大家的尊重 |
| 00:00:47,000 | 00:00:49,000 | 我們都知道您是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:49,000 | 00:00:51,000 | 您是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:51,000 | 00:00:53,000 | 您是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:53,000 | 00:00:55,000 | 您是第一次來監察院 |
| 00:00:55,000 | 00:00:57,000 | 這些經歷都值得大家的尊重 |
| 00:00:57,000 | 00:01:00,000 | 民主社會需要有人幫弱勢發聲 |
| 00:01:00,000 | 00:01:03,000 | 也需要不同立場的倡議者 |
| 00:01:03,000 | 00:01:04,000 | 但是問題來了 |
| 00:01:04,000 | 00:01:06,000 | 社會運動者可以選邊站 |
| 00:01:06,000 | 00:01:08,000 | 監察委員不行 |
| 00:01:08,000 | 00:01:12,000 | 社運工作者可以為了特定的理念衝鋒憲政 |
| 00:01:12,000 | 00:01:16,000 | 但是監察委員手上拿的是國家的監察權 |
| 00:01:16,000 | 00:01:20,000 | 必須要依照憲法、法律跟市政來辦事 |
| 00:01:20,000 | 00:01:22,000 | 所以我想先請教您 |
| 00:01:22,000 | 00:01:25,000 | 您自己認為過去六年 |
| 00:01:25,000 | 00:01:30,000 | 有沒有完全做到超越自己本來的政治跟社會運動立場 |
| 00:01:30,000 | 00:01:31,000 | 甚至這樣講 |
| 00:01:31,000 | 00:01:33,000 | 請您直接告訴我 |
| 00:01:33,000 | 00:01:38,000 | 過去六年有哪一個具體案件是您調查的對象、結果 |
| 00:01:38,000 | 00:01:42,000 | 甚至結論與您本來的政治立場是不同的 |
| 00:01:42,000 | 00:01:44,000 | 但您仍然秉公處理 |
| 00:01:44,000 | 00:01:47,000 | 請你舉出一個最具代表性的例子 |
| 00:01:48,000 | 00:01:53,000 | 我想監察委員的工作 |
| 00:01:53,000 | 00:01:56,000 | 只是在案件的調查 |
| 00:01:56,000 | 00:02:00,000 | 我剛剛也跟委員報告 |
| 00:02:00,000 | 00:02:04,000 | 我在監察調查的案件確實不多 |
| 00:02:04,000 | 00:02:08,000 | 我一共只有三十一件的調查案件 |
| 00:02:08,000 | 00:02:11,000 | 但是在這一個部分的話 |
| 00:02:11,000 | 00:02:13,000 | 要我特別舉出來 |
| 00:02:13,000 | 00:02:19,000 | 跟我的過去的政治理念的這一個部分有所不同 |
| 00:02:19,000 | 00:02:23,000 | 或者是說在這裡面的話 |
| 00:02:23,000 | 00:02:26,000 | 跟我在社運的立場上面不同 |
| 00:02:26,000 | 00:02:29,000 | 我想在這裡面沒有出的案件 |
| 00:02:29,000 | 00:02:33,000 | 但是我可以說明的一個案件是 |
| 00:02:33,000 | 00:02:39,000 | 我必須先說明這一個是一個案件 |
| 00:02:39,000 | 00:02:41,000 | 我簡單的說明的情況裡面 |
| 00:02:41,000 | 00:02:45,000 | 我們在接受懲刑的這一個 |
| 00:02:45,000 | 00:02:47,000 | 監察院接受懲刑的時候 |
| 00:02:47,000 | 00:02:54,000 | 有一個案件是有關於一位身心障礙公務員的自殺案件 |
| 00:02:54,000 | 00:02:59,000 | 然後家屬認為在第一個部分的話 |
| 00:02:59,000 | 00:03:03,000 | 他的任用機關有相關的責任 |
| 00:03:03,000 | 00:03:08,000 | 因為身心障礙者我想在監察院裡面的話 |
| 00:03:08,000 | 00:03:13,000 | 同仁就推派我來做這樣子的案件的調查 |
| 00:03:13,000 | 00:03:17,000 | 經過抽屍剝繭的情況裡面的話 |
| 00:03:17,000 | 00:03:23,000 | 在這裡面的話我們確實還原整個真實的情況跟狀況 |
| 00:03:23,000 | 00:03:27,000 | 並不如家屬所想的這樣子的情況 |
| 00:03:27,000 | 00:03:32,000 | 很多人原來認為這個案件在之後的話 |
| 00:03:32,000 | 00:03:34,000 | 我們當然會規則於用人機關 |
| 00:03:34,000 | 00:03:36,000 | 因為他是障礙者 |
| 00:03:36,000 | 00:03:39,000 | 尤其就是說死的這樣子的一個情況 |
| 00:03:39,000 | 00:03:41,000 | 但是就是說我們還原了 |
| 00:03:41,000 | 00:03:46,000 | 在調查過程裡面還原了事實真相這一個部分 |
| 00:03:46,000 | 00:03:52,000 | 然後用人機關有他疏忽的地方也請他負起責任 |
| 00:03:52,000 | 00:03:56,000 | 然後也讓家屬能夠就是說清楚明白事實的真相 |
| 00:03:56,000 | 00:03:58,000 | 王先生為什麼我特地要提這個 |
| 00:03:58,000 | 00:04:01,000 | 因為全國民眾都想要知道說 |
| 00:04:01,000 | 00:04:03,000 | 王榮章進了監察院之後 |
| 00:04:03,000 | 00:04:05,000 | 當上副院長之後 |
| 00:04:05,000 | 00:04:07,000 | 是把社運的旗子放下來 |
| 00:04:07,000 | 00:04:11,000 | 拿起憲法還是只是把旗子帶進監察院 |
| 00:04:11,000 | 00:04:13,000 | 這是兩件完全不同的事情 |
| 00:04:13,000 | 00:04:16,000 | 而王先生您不只是參與社會運動 |
| 00:04:16,000 | 00:04:19,000 | 您還是民進黨的不分區立委 |
| 00:04:19,000 | 00:04:21,000 | 那這當然不是原罪 |
| 00:04:21,000 | 00:04:25,000 | 但是監察委員的法律要求就是必須要超出黨派 |
| 00:04:25,000 | 00:04:26,000 | 保持中立 |
| 00:04:26,000 | 00:04:30,000 | 很有意思的您自己在書面答覆裡面也承認 |
| 00:04:30,000 | 00:04:32,000 | 監察院現在的滿意度低 |
| 00:04:32,000 | 00:04:37,000 | 其中一個核心原因就是提名制度引起政治疑慮 |
| 00:04:37,000 | 00:04:40,000 | 以及重大施政弊案查辦時 |
| 00:04:40,000 | 00:04:42,000 | 為輔仁民期待 |
| 00:04:42,000 | 00:04:44,000 | 這是您自己寫的 |
| 00:04:44,000 | 00:04:45,000 | 所以我要問著您 |
| 00:04:45,000 | 00:04:47,000 | 我要順著您的答案來問 |
| 00:04:47,000 | 00:04:49,000 | 那既然您知道人民有這個疑慮 |
| 00:04:49,000 | 00:04:51,000 | 請問你過去六年 |
| 00:04:51,000 | 00:04:55,000 | 有沒有主動調查民進黨政府的重大政策 |
| 00:04:55,000 | 00:04:57,000 | 或重大行政為師 |
| 00:04:57,000 | 00:04:59,000 | 請問您有沒有主導參與 |
| 00:04:59,000 | 00:05:03,000 | 而且最後真的產生實質的糾正效果 |
| 00:05:03,000 | 00:05:05,000 | 糾舉或彈劾 |
| 00:05:05,000 | 00:05:07,000 | 請您講最重要的一件 |
| 00:05:07,000 | 00:05:10,000 | 我想要例來講的這個部分 |
| 00:05:10,000 | 00:05:13,000 | 我確實有辦理過相關的案件 |
| 00:05:13,000 | 00:05:16,000 | 這裡面包括我們的國防部對於 |
| 00:05:16,000 | 00:05:23,000 | 從84年的制度裡面所執行的 |
| 00:05:23,000 | 00:05:27,000 | 對於已署的醫事金的部分執行 |
| 00:05:27,000 | 00:05:31,000 | 從84年一直挫到民國110年 |
| 00:05:31,000 | 00:05:33,000 | 這樣子的情況 |
| 00:05:33,000 | 00:05:37,000 | 提出六位軍官的彈劾工作 |
| 00:05:37,000 | 00:05:41,000 | 雖然國防部是在民進黨執政之下 |
| 00:05:41,000 | 00:05:45,000 | 當然這個案件歷經30多年的錯誤 |
| 00:05:45,000 | 00:05:47,000 | 我提出相關的糾正 |
| 00:05:47,000 | 00:05:48,000 | 另外的話 |
| 00:05:48,000 | 00:05:50,000 | 對於桃園縣政府 |
| 00:05:50,000 | 00:05:53,000 | 民進黨執政的時候對於 |
| 00:05:53,000 | 00:05:58,000 | 身障礙相關的基金的運用 |
| 00:05:58,000 | 00:06:02,000 | 然後對於公產盈餘運用的部分 |
| 00:06:02,000 | 00:06:05,000 | 不當的使用我也提出相關的糾正 |
| 00:06:05,000 | 00:06:10,000 | 如果未來民進黨政府發生重大違法失職 |
| 00:06:10,000 | 00:06:13,000 | 甚至涉及行政院長、部會首長 |
| 00:06:13,000 | 00:06:16,000 | 您會不會查、敢不敢查 |
| 00:06:16,000 | 00:06:19,000 | 我想這個部分的話 |
| 00:06:19,000 | 00:06:22,000 | 監察院作為準司法機關 |
| 00:06:22,000 | 00:06:26,000 | 處理風險機關的責任 |
| 00:06:26,000 | 00:06:28,000 | 這裡面的話 |
| 00:06:28,000 | 00:06:29,000 | 不管政黨 |
| 00:06:29,000 | 00:06:31,000 | 我個人的這個部分也是如此 |
| 00:06:31,000 | 00:06:33,000 | 不管是在製度的要求 |
| 00:06:33,000 | 00:06:36,000 | 或我對個人的要求 |
| 00:06:36,000 | 00:06:40,000 | 這裡面不論政黨的顏色背景 |
| 00:06:40,000 | 00:06:41,000 | 證據到哪裡 |
| 00:06:41,000 | 00:06:42,000 | 查到哪裡 |
| 00:06:42,000 | 00:06:43,000 | 辦到哪裡 |
| 00:06:43,000 | 00:06:45,000 | 然後這個部分的話 |
| 00:06:45,000 | 00:06:47,000 | 我對在這裡面可以 |
| 00:06:47,000 | 00:06:49,000 | 以這樣子的說明 |
| 00:06:49,000 | 00:06:52,000 | 然後這也是我的堅持跟主張 |
| 00:06:52,000 | 00:06:54,000 | 其實您的問卷回答裡面也有 |
| 00:06:54,000 | 00:06:57,000 | 我想不是只有我所有的剛剛質詢的委員 |
| 00:06:57,000 | 00:06:59,000 | 尤其是在野黨的委員們 |
| 00:06:59,000 | 00:07:01,000 | 都有一樣的疑惑 |
| 00:07:01,000 | 00:07:05,000 | 就是行政院長拒絕附屬立法院三讀通過的法案 |
| 00:07:05,000 | 00:07:09,000 | 您的回答認為這是屬於政治性的憲政僵局 |
| 00:07:09,000 | 00:07:13,000 | 應該透過政治協商或憲法判決解決 |
| 00:07:13,000 | 00:07:17,000 | 而不是透過監察院懲戒制度來處理 |
| 00:07:17,000 | 00:07:19,000 | 我尊重您的法律意見 |
| 00:07:19,000 | 00:07:20,000 | 但是我也必須要提醒您 |
| 00:07:20,000 | 00:07:22,000 | 如果監察院說什麼問題 |
| 00:07:22,000 | 00:07:24,000 | 都說這是政治問題 |
| 00:07:24,000 | 00:07:26,000 | 什麼說說等法院判 |
| 00:07:26,000 | 00:07:30,000 | 最後面監察院會不會變成一個大型的轉接中心 |
| 00:07:30,000 | 00:07:32,000 | 能轉法院就轉法院 |
| 00:07:32,000 | 00:07:34,000 | 能等釋憲就等釋憲 |
| 00:07:34,000 | 00:07:36,000 | 那人民會直覺去問認為說 |
| 00:07:36,000 | 00:07:38,000 | 我們要這個監察院拿來幹嘛呢 |
| 00:07:40,000 | 00:07:41,000 | 這個部分的話 |
| 00:07:41,000 | 00:07:46,000 | 監察院的者在於公務人員或者公家機關 |
| 00:07:46,000 | 00:07:51,000 | 違法失職應作為而不作為的就是說情況底下 |
| 00:07:51,000 | 00:07:53,000 | 我們可以行使監察權 |
| 00:07:53,000 | 00:07:57,000 | 但是對於法律的就是說適用的爭議 |
| 00:07:57,000 | 00:08:01,000 | 乃至於就是說在剛剛舉例行政院長 |
| 00:08:01,000 | 00:08:05,000 | 可不可以在這樣子的案件上面行使附屬權 |
| 00:08:05,000 | 00:08:11,000 | 那這裡面牽涉到憲法賦予的附屬權 |
| 00:08:11,000 | 00:08:12,000 | 這一個部分 |
| 00:08:12,000 | 00:08:14,000 | 到底就是說是不是 |
| 00:08:14,000 | 00:08:16,000 | 在這 |
| 00:08:16,000 | 00:08:20,000 | 是他到底是行政院長的權利還是義務 |
| 00:08:20,000 | 00:08:25,000 | 剛剛我們院長被提名人也做過了相關的就是說明 |
| 00:08:25,000 | 00:08:28,000 | 所以在不是監察院權責的這個部分的話 |
| 00:08:28,000 | 00:08:30,000 | 我們沒有辦法做認定 |
| 00:08:30,000 | 00:08:32,000 | 也沒有辦法強加作為 |
| 00:08:33,000 | 00:08:37,000 | 好其實剛剛這一題最後這一題其實剛剛也有不少 |
| 00:08:37,000 | 00:08:41,000 | 您自己也曾經講過就是您當了六年的監察委員 |
| 00:08:41,000 | 00:08:46,000 | 那你目前公開統計來看來看您的調查報告參與數是25件 |
| 00:08:46,000 | 00:08:49,000 | 第二少的監察委員是31 |
| 00:08:49,000 | 00:08:51,000 | 那第二少是76件 |
| 00:08:51,000 | 00:08:52,000 | 您的彈劾案是1件 |
| 00:08:52,000 | 00:08:53,000 | 那第二例的是3件 |
| 00:08:53,000 | 00:08:55,000 | 您的糾正案是6件 |
| 00:08:55,000 | 00:08:57,000 | 倒數第二反而是20件 |
| 00:08:57,000 | 00:09:01,000 | 這個差距跟很多項目來講差距可能 |
| 00:09:01,000 | 00:09:03,000 | 不是兩倍到三倍 |
| 00:09:03,000 | 00:09:05,000 | 但是老實說數字不能代表一切 |
| 00:09:05,000 | 00:09:08,000 | 但是如果每個數字都特別低的時候 |
| 00:09:08,000 | 00:09:11,000 | 總是會有一些代表代表一些意義吧 |
| 00:09:11,000 | 00:09:12,000 | 所以請你具體回答 |
| 00:09:12,000 | 00:09:18,000 | 為什麼您的核心監察業務參見數會明顯低於其他監察委員 |
| 00:09:18,000 | 00:09:20,000 | 是因為您辦的案件特別困難 |
| 00:09:20,000 | 00:09:23,000 | 還是您投入國家人權委員會工作 |
| 00:09:23,000 | 00:09:25,000 | 還是您本來的工作分配就不同 |
| 00:09:26,000 | 00:09:28,000 | 第一個部分的話 |
| 00:09:28,000 | 00:09:31,000 | 我選擇我們兩個角色 |
| 00:09:31,000 | 00:09:35,000 | 一個是監察委員兼國家人權委員會委員 |
| 00:09:35,000 | 00:09:37,000 | 在這一個部分的話 |
| 00:09:37,000 | 00:09:40,000 | 國家人權委員會的委員根據巴黎原則 |
| 00:09:40,000 | 00:09:42,000 | 他必須是專職 |
| 00:09:42,000 | 00:09:44,000 | 但是我們現在執權刑事法的規定 |
| 00:09:44,000 | 00:09:48,000 | 我們是監察委員兼國家人權委員會 |
| 00:09:48,000 | 00:09:49,000 | 那對我來講 |
| 00:09:49,000 | 00:09:53,000 | 我的選擇投入在人權會的工作裡面 |
| 00:09:53,000 | 00:09:55,000 | 那我在這一個部分的話 |
| 00:09:55,000 | 00:09:56,000 | 低度參與 |
| 00:09:56,000 | 00:09:59,000 | 我們仍然就說盡相關的義務 |
| 00:09:59,000 | 00:10:01,000 | 老師說這就是我現在很大的疑問 |
| 00:10:01,000 | 00:10:04,000 | 就是說您在數目報告裡面也提出說 |
| 00:10:04,000 | 00:10:10,000 | 在兼任人權委員的監委可以低度參與監察職權工作 |
| 00:10:10,000 | 00:10:13,000 | 可是這樣對於一個未來的副院長 |
| 00:10:13,000 | 00:10:15,000 | 其實這個樣子的態度 |
| 00:10:24,000 | 00:10:26,000 | 好 |
| 00:10:31,000 | 00:10:32,000 | 謝謝 |
| 00:10:32,000 | 00:10:33,000 | 林委員 |