跳到主要內容區塊

行政院民國108年版揭弊者保護法草案評析

行政院民國108年版揭弊者保護法草案評析

楊戊龍、李淑如

《摘要》

本文從「適當的人員」(who)將「(妨礙)公益的資訊」(what),向「適當的組織∕人員」(to whom)為「適當的揭發」(test),則受到「保護」(protection),即「適格」揭發受保護的架構,評論行政院2019年5月通過適用於公私部門的「揭弊者保護法」草案。本文認為,該份草案社會大眾很難看得懂,立法目的陳述的格局太小,二分法下的公私部門揭弊者定義,加入弊案或程序要件分析後,漏洞很多,最大問題在於納入或排除為「弊案」的標準模糊,而排除一般行政義務違反行為之揭發保護,很可能造成日後重大的公共安全問題。但在揭發程序、受理機關、認定標準及保護等部分有很多值得肯定之處。對於私部門部分,本文建議弊案範圍應納入重大管理不當、企業內部賄賂、違背倫理典則,或對國民健康、公共安全造成具體危險之行為,但基於企業自治的治理原則,除在特定條件下,應鼓勵組織成員先向企業內控機制揭發、自我矯正,基此,也建議公私部門的「弊案」與「揭發程序」分條規定。另外,建議建立懲罰性賠償制度,藉由跨越民法損害賠償以填補損害為原則之法理,來提供揭弊者更優惠的賠償,引導企業法遵,遏止報復情事發生;以及將一定比例的罰鍰用以設立「揭弊者保護基金」,作為支應鼓勵揭弊或補償揭弊者損害之用。關於戴立紳條款部分,因涉及文官制度的核心價值及有其他替代解決途徑,本文不表認同,並呼籲文官制度主管機關應有更積極、負責任的回應,以及建議在揭弊者保護法中增訂:揭弊公務員自首揭弊係揭弊內容所涉犯罪之正犯或共犯,符合法律應為免除其刑者,檢察官應為不起訴處分,以為替代。

[關鍵詞]:      揭弊者保護法草案、戴立紳條款、公私部門

Reviewing the Whistleblower Protection Bill Proposed by the Executive Yuan in 2019

Wulung Yang, Shuju Lee

Abstract

This paper reviews the Whistleblower Protection Bill proposed by the Executive Yuan in May 2019 based on the argument that an appropriate disclosure of information about wrongdoing made by the proper person to an appropriate entity receives protection, i.e. the qualified disclosure gets protection. This paper argues that the bill is a little difficult for civilians to figure out, and the statement of purposes is too narrow for an integrity policy. Furthermore, a few protective loopholes arise in the dichotomy of whistleblowers in the public sector versus those in the private sector. The standard of excluding conducts from wrongdoings is equivocal. Nevertheless, there are commendable provisions regarding disclosure procedures, grounds, protection measures, and entities and persons to whom disclosures may be made. It is suggested that a punitive damage system be established to punish the entities or persons who commit reprisals against whistleblowers. It is also suggested that a protection fund be set up to help and compensate whistleblowers who are discharged or suffer discrimination. In the end, for the sake of protecting the core civil service value of “integrity”, the paper is strongly opposed to the Tai Li-shen provision, and urges the personnel authorities to take proactive measures to amend it. To encourage those civil servants who are involved as accomplices in corruption but seek forgiveness by reporting wrongdoing, it is suggested that prosecutors use the existing non-prosecution system to absolve them of charges before the case reaches trial so that those suspected still have the opportunity to work as public officials in the future.

Keywords:  Whistleblower Protection Bill, Tai Li-shen provision, public and private sector