行政听证程序研究
摘要
行政程序是行政权力公正行使最起码的程序，被认为是现代行政的主要标志。加快我国行政程序法典化的进程已被全国人大列为议事日程。然而，行政程序中最关键、最重要的程序—行政听证程序，在国外已有几十年的发展历史，其理论研究和法制实践相当成熟，而在我国理论研究中还相当薄弱，为配合行政程序法立法需要，应大力加强这一方面的理论探索。1996年，随着《行政处罚法》的出台，我国借鉴吸收了国外听证程序的经验，把听证程序第一次移植了进来。但是在现实中听证程序的实施运作存在不少障碍，致使听证程序的功能没有达到预期的效果。目前，虽有关于行政听证方面的论文、著作在国内出现，但其研究还较为零乱，缺乏对既有立法成果的冷静反思与理性批判。基于此，作者选择“行政听证程序研究”作为自己硕士论文的选题，旨在通过对中西方听证程序予以纵向的历史考察，对主要法治国家的听证程序进行横向的比较研究。在坚持理论论证与实证分析相结合的基础上，对我国现行听证程序立法的不足进行剖析，并对之予以理性检讨，构思完善我国听证程序应遵循的原则、具体制度构建及其法治环境建设的设想，以期有益于我国行政程序法典化立法工作。
全文共分三个部分，约30000字。
第一部分：听证程序基本理论问题的探讨。本部分首先介绍了听证程序的基本概念、种类、功能和特征。听证，是公正程序的核心内容，其本质含义在于听取利害关系人的意见。行政听证作为一种程序性制度有其阶段性、准司法性、审查性、局部性、程序性、公开性等特征。其次，作者阐述了中外听证程序产生的法理基础，并对听证程序的价值及其价值目标进行理论探讨。听证程序的产生有其深厚的法理基础，它起源于英国的“自然公正”，以后美国宪法的“正当法律程序”又深化了这一法理。听证运用于行政领域，是由于行政权不
断扩张的结果。听证程序包含有公正和高效的内在和外在价值，公正和效率就
是听证程序追求的价值目标，“公正优先，兼顾效率”是听证程序的价值取向。
第三，文章对国内外的有关听证程序的基本原则给予简要的介绍。最后，作者
介绍了行政听政程序的历史演变过程。
第二部分:中外听证程序具体内容的比较研究。本部分在收集国内外相关
资料的基础上，借鉴其他的学科的相关研究成果，从比较法学的角度分别对中
国、美国、德国、法国、日本等主要法治国家或地区的听证程序的适用范围、
主体、举证责任制度、具体程序等方面进行逐项的比较研究，从而使中外听证
制度的优缺点跃然纸上。尤其是美国的“行政法官”制度、案卷排他性原则、
举证阶段限制原则等国外先进制度的介绍，为完善我国听证制度的完善提供了
条件。
第三部分:我国听证制度完善的思考。首先，对我国行政听证程序运作过
程中存在的问题及原因进行了分析，其问题主要存在于听证的范围过窄、主持
人相对独立的地位没有确立、听证程序忽视了第三人的利益的保护、举证责任
不明、听证笔录和听证报告的效力未作规定，致使现有听证制度流于形式，其
功能无法发挥，真正的行政立法听证制度在我国尚未建立。究其原因，有其法
律规定过于原则的立法因素，吏有不健全的法制环境所造成的深层次的社会因
素。其次，提出借鉴国际经验与体现本土资源相结合的原则、注重公正与效率、
职能分离、案卷排他性原则、举证阶段限制原则等，应作为我国完善的听证程
序的基本原则。最后，针对我国现行行政听证制度存在的同题及其原因，结合
第二部分对中外听证程序比较研究的结果，提出了完善我国行政听证程序的具
体构想:!、逐步扩大具体行政行为听证的适用范围;2、抽象行政行为听证范围
的全面化，听证程序规则制度化、完善化;3、树立主持人相对独立和公正超然
的法律地位:4、扩大行政听证参与人的范围，确保第三人的合法权益;5、合
理分配举证责任，移植美国的案卷排他性原则和举证阶段限制原则制度;6、借
鉴美国的案件排他性原则，建立听证笔录应当作为行政机关作出处罚决定的唯
一依据的制度;7、保障听证程序正常运作的基础工作:(l)提高人们依程序行
政的观念，树立程序法治观念;(2)树立行政机关与相对人平等法律地位的观
念;(3)建立对行政程序违法的监督奖励机制;(4)提高行政执法水平、强化
行政执法责任制，确保听证制度的实施。
Administrative procedure is the most elementary procedure to perform administrative power impartially. It is regarded as the main sign of modem administration. The project on the codifying of administrative procedure has been scheduled by National People's Congress. Administrative hearing which is the most important one in administrative procedure has a history of several decades in western countries. The theory studying of hearing system has been quite developed in western countries, but in our country, it still keeps weak. To cooperate with the legislation need of administrative procedure, the theory studying in this field should be strengthened. It is the first time that hearing procedure was grafted into China in 1996. There are many difficulties when the administrative hearing procedure was earned out into practice, and its functions don't achieve to the result which had been expected. For these reasons, the author has chosen "The Research of Administrative Hearing Procedure" as the title of his master
article, aiming to perfect our country's administrative hearing system by making comparison research between Chinese and some western representative countries' administrative hearing procedure.
The whole thesis includes three parts with 30000 words approximately.
Part One: The Exploration of the Fundamental Theory of Hearing Procedure. Firstly, the paper tells us the essential concept ,kinds, functions and characters of administrative procedure. Hearing is the core of the just procedure, whose essential meaning is to listen to the views of the parties. As a kind of procedural system, it is staged, semi-judicial, part, and procedural and so on. Secondly, the foundation of legal theories and the values of administrative hearing procedure which are justice
and efficiency are introduced. Hearing procedure stems from "natural justice" in Britain and "due process of law" in America. The values of administrative hearing procedure are justice and efficiency, and the seeking value goal is "Justice first. efficiency second". Thirdly, the paper briefly introduced the essential principles of all kinds of views about hearing procedure, and the different classifiers of administrative hearing. Finally, the development history of hearing procedure is introduced. As a result of the constant expansion of administrative power, hearing has been used in administrative field. Due to the shortage of democracy and scientific legality condition, the real administrative hearing system could not be produced in ancient China.
Part Two: The Comparison Research of the Main Contents of Administrative Hearing Procedure. In this part, the writer gave a comparison studying to the range, the subject, and Proof responsibility system of hearing procedure and so on item by item from the angle of comparative law. Therefore, the shortages and advantages appeared vividly in our mind. Some foreign advanced systems such as American "administrative judge system" and so on established the base to perfect the hearing system in our country.
Part Three: Consideration of Predictions our Administrative Hearing System. Firstly, the writer analyzed the existing problems and their reasons in our administrative hearing procedure operation. These problems are because of the brief stipulation of the law and the in perfect environments, of legality. Then, it was pointed that we should follow the principle of combing between the international experience and Chinese character, when we perfect our administrative hearing system. At last, In accordance with the existent problems in our administrative hearing system at present, combining the result of comparison research in Part two of the paper, the writer posed the concrete proposition to perfect our administrative hearing procedure and projected a constructive plan to perfect the environments of rule of law of an efficient administrative hearing system.
全文共分三个部分，约30000字。
第一部分：听证程序基本理论问题的探讨。本部分首先介绍了听证程序的基本概念、种类、功能和特征。听证，是公正程序的核心内容，其本质含义在于听取利害关系人的意见。行政听证作为一种程序性制度有其阶段性、准司法性、审查性、局部性、程序性、公开性等特征。其次，作者阐述了中外听证程序产生的法理基础，并对听证程序的价值及其价值目标进行理论探讨。听证程序的产生有其深厚的法理基础，它起源于英国的“自然公正”，以后美国宪法的“正当法律程序”又深化了这一法理。听证运用于行政领域，是由于行政权不
断扩张的结果。听证程序包含有公正和高效的内在和外在价值，公正和效率就
是听证程序追求的价值目标，“公正优先，兼顾效率”是听证程序的价值取向。
第三，文章对国内外的有关听证程序的基本原则给予简要的介绍。最后，作者
介绍了行政听政程序的历史演变过程。
第二部分:中外听证程序具体内容的比较研究。本部分在收集国内外相关
资料的基础上，借鉴其他的学科的相关研究成果，从比较法学的角度分别对中
国、美国、德国、法国、日本等主要法治国家或地区的听证程序的适用范围、
主体、举证责任制度、具体程序等方面进行逐项的比较研究，从而使中外听证
制度的优缺点跃然纸上。尤其是美国的“行政法官”制度、案卷排他性原则、
举证阶段限制原则等国外先进制度的介绍，为完善我国听证制度的完善提供了
条件。
第三部分:我国听证制度完善的思考。首先，对我国行政听证程序运作过
程中存在的问题及原因进行了分析，其问题主要存在于听证的范围过窄、主持
人相对独立的地位没有确立、听证程序忽视了第三人的利益的保护、举证责任
不明、听证笔录和听证报告的效力未作规定，致使现有听证制度流于形式，其
功能无法发挥，真正的行政立法听证制度在我国尚未建立。究其原因，有其法
律规定过于原则的立法因素，吏有不健全的法制环境所造成的深层次的社会因
素。其次，提出借鉴国际经验与体现本土资源相结合的原则、注重公正与效率、
职能分离、案卷排他性原则、举证阶段限制原则等，应作为我国完善的听证程
序的基本原则。最后，针对我国现行行政听证制度存在的同题及其原因，结合
第二部分对中外听证程序比较研究的结果，提出了完善我国行政听证程序的具
体构想:!、逐步扩大具体行政行为听证的适用范围;2、抽象行政行为听证范围
的全面化，听证程序规则制度化、完善化;3、树立主持人相对独立和公正超然
的法律地位:4、扩大行政听证参与人的范围，确保第三人的合法权益;5、合
理分配举证责任，移植美国的案卷排他性原则和举证阶段限制原则制度;6、借
鉴美国的案件排他性原则，建立听证笔录应当作为行政机关作出处罚决定的唯
一依据的制度;7、保障听证程序正常运作的基础工作:(l)提高人们依程序行
政的观念，树立程序法治观念;(2)树立行政机关与相对人平等法律地位的观
念;(3)建立对行政程序违法的监督奖励机制;(4)提高行政执法水平、强化
行政执法责任制，确保听证制度的实施。
Administrative procedure is the most elementary procedure to perform administrative power impartially. It is regarded as the main sign of modem administration. The project on the codifying of administrative procedure has been scheduled by National People's Congress. Administrative hearing which is the most important one in administrative procedure has a history of several decades in western countries. The theory studying of hearing system has been quite developed in western countries, but in our country, it still keeps weak. To cooperate with the legislation need of administrative procedure, the theory studying in this field should be strengthened. It is the first time that hearing procedure was grafted into China in 1996. There are many difficulties when the administrative hearing procedure was earned out into practice, and its functions don't achieve to the result which had been expected. For these reasons, the author has chosen "The Research of Administrative Hearing Procedure" as the title of his master
article, aiming to perfect our country's administrative hearing system by making comparison research between Chinese and some western representative countries' administrative hearing procedure.
The whole thesis includes three parts with 30000 words approximately.
Part One: The Exploration of the Fundamental Theory of Hearing Procedure. Firstly, the paper tells us the essential concept ,kinds, functions and characters of administrative procedure. Hearing is the core of the just procedure, whose essential meaning is to listen to the views of the parties. As a kind of procedural system, it is staged, semi-judicial, part, and procedural and so on. Secondly, the foundation of legal theories and the values of administrative hearing procedure which are justice
and efficiency are introduced. Hearing procedure stems from "natural justice" in Britain and "due process of law" in America. The values of administrative hearing procedure are justice and efficiency, and the seeking value goal is "Justice first. efficiency second". Thirdly, the paper briefly introduced the essential principles of all kinds of views about hearing procedure, and the different classifiers of administrative hearing. Finally, the development history of hearing procedure is introduced. As a result of the constant expansion of administrative power, hearing has been used in administrative field. Due to the shortage of democracy and scientific legality condition, the real administrative hearing system could not be produced in ancient China.
Part Two: The Comparison Research of the Main Contents of Administrative Hearing Procedure. In this part, the writer gave a comparison studying to the range, the subject, and Proof responsibility system of hearing procedure and so on item by item from the angle of comparative law. Therefore, the shortages and advantages appeared vividly in our mind. Some foreign advanced systems such as American "administrative judge system" and so on established the base to perfect the hearing system in our country.
Part Three: Consideration of Predictions our Administrative Hearing System. Firstly, the writer analyzed the existing problems and their reasons in our administrative hearing procedure operation. These problems are because of the brief stipulation of the law and the in perfect environments, of legality. Then, it was pointed that we should follow the principle of combing between the international experience and Chinese character, when we perfect our administrative hearing system. At last, In accordance with the existent problems in our administrative hearing system at present, combining the result of comparison research in Part two of the paper, the writer posed the concrete proposition to perfect our administrative hearing procedure and projected a constructive plan to perfect the environments of rule of law of an efficient administrative hearing system.
引文
1、王名扬：《美国行政法》，北京：中国法制出版社1995年版。
2、王名扬：《法国行政法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
3、王名扬：《英国行政法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
4、章剑生：《行政程序法比较研究》，杭州：杭州大学出版社1999年版。
5、应松年主编：《比较行政程序法》，北京：中国法制出版社1999年版。
6、张正钊、韩大元：《比较行政法》，北京：中国人民大学出版社1998年版。
7、杨惠基：《听证程序理论与实务》，上海：上海人民出版社1997年版。
8、王万华：《行政程序法研究》，北京：中国法制出版社2000年版。
9、刘勉义、蒋勇：《行政听证程序研究与适用》，北京：警官教育出版社1997年版。
10、王学辉、贺善征：《行政程序法研究》，成都：四川人民出版社1999年版。
2、王名扬：《法国行政法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
3、王名扬：《英国行政法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
4、章剑生：《行政程序法比较研究》，杭州：杭州大学出版社1999年版。
5、应松年主编：《比较行政程序法》，北京：中国法制出版社1999年版。
6、张正钊、韩大元：《比较行政法》，北京：中国人民大学出版社1998年版。
7、杨惠基：《听证程序理论与实务》，上海：上海人民出版社1997年版。
8、王万华：《行政程序法研究》，北京：中国法制出版社2000年版。
9、刘勉义、蒋勇：《行政听证程序研究与适用》，北京：警官教育出版社1997年版。
10、王学辉、贺善征：《行政程序法研究》，成都：四川人民出版社1999年版。