我国过程性政府信息豁免公开制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-19 17:58

本文选题：豁免公开 + 过程性政府信息　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国政务公开工作近年成绩显著,然则对过程性政府信息的研究进展迟缓,实务中对是否公开也存在诸多问题。表现在《政府信息公开条例》中没有提及,国务院部门规章、地方政府规章的规定不统一,不能对实务操作进行有效的指导等。这些问题若是能够解决,就能推动信息公开制度的进一步发展。过程性政府信息不宜全部公开或者全部不公开,应该有一定的范围,以对实务操作提供可行性建议。根据过程性政府信息的自身特点,可以采用概括列举式明确豁免公开的范围,并保留可以公开的例外。同时完善与之配套的行政措施,提高实务中的可操作性,实现行政权与知情权的共赢。首先,明确过程性政府信息的内涵,探讨其与《政府信息公开条例》的关系,并与内部管理信息和行政决策相区分。接着,从立法、执法和司法三个角度描述我国过程性政府信息在公开争议上存在的现实问题,通过查阅现有的规范性文件和实务中的案例,发现有法规笼统、规章不一,执法过程中的绝对化倾向,司法审查标准不统一等问题,这些问题造成实务中不予公开的过程性政府信息过多,可以公开的过少。在经过上述讨论之后,具体界定豁免公开的范围。当前国际上通常做法是豁免公开,我国现有规范中也多规定此类信息不予公开,这样的规定必然有其道理,但是一律不公开难免有"一刀切"之嫌,也不利于行政工作的开展。因此,为了保证行政机关正常决策,提高行政效率,过程性政府信息应以不公开为原则,但是为了避免有关部门滥用豁免制度,需要对不公开的范围和公开的范围进行严格限定,防止有关机关对其采取扩大解释,使制度形同虚设。具体来说就是不得公开不具有正式性的、影响社会稳定的、影响表达自由的、重复的信息。无论是行政机关自身,还是申请信息者,都不希望决策处于低效、无序之中,决策作出离不开这些基础和支撑,不公开可以保证行政机关正常运转。同时,为在法定范围内保障公民知情权,应对可以公开的过程性政府信息也进行列举,如事实性信息等。最后,从当前的实际情况出发,参考其他国家的有关经验,提出破解这一难题的建议。作为社会主义法治国家,解决这一问题的关键在于保证有法可依,明确不公开的范围以及责任后果,并提供制度保障,缩小弹性空间。比如采用区分原则保障公民知情权,充分运用行政法中的比例原则作为审查标准,发挥行政复议的优势,坚持举证责任倒置。希望通过这些方式,能够减轻救济成本,并借此提高行政效率,方便群众生活。
[Abstract]:In recent years, there have been remarkable achievements in the work of open government affairs in our country, but the research on the process government information is slow, and there are many problems in practice whether it is open or not. It is not mentioned in the regulations on the publicity of Government Information, the regulations of the State Council and the local governments are not uniform, and they can not guide the practical operation effectively, and so on. If these problems can be solved, it can promote the further development of information disclosure system. The process government information should not be completely open or not open, but should have a certain scope to provide feasible suggestions for practical operation. According to the characteristics of process government information, the general enumeration can be used to clarify the scope of exemption from disclosure, and to retain the exceptions that can be made public. At the same time, improve the corresponding administrative measures, improve the operability in practice, and realize the win-win of the administrative power and the right to know. First of all, the connotation of process government information is clarified, and the relationship between process government information and government information disclosure regulations is discussed, and it is distinguished from internal management information and administrative decisions. Then, from the three angles of legislation, law enforcement and judicature, this paper describes the realistic problems existing in the public dispute of the process government information in our country. By consulting the existing normative documents and cases in practice, we find that there are general laws and regulations and different regulations. In the process of law enforcement, there are many problems, such as the absolute tendency and the inconsistent standards of judicial review. These problems result in too much process government information which is not open in practice, and too little information can be made public. After the above discussion, the scope of immunity disclosure is specifically defined. At present, the usual practice in the international community is to exempt from disclosure, and the existing norms of our country also stipulate that this kind of information is not to be disclosed. Such a provision is bound to be justified, but it is inevitable that it is "one-size-fits-all" that is not open to the public, which is not conducive to the development of administrative work. Therefore, in order to ensure the normal decision-making of the administrative organs and improve the administrative efficiency, the process of government information should be based on the principle of non-disclosure, but in order to avoid abuse of the exemption system by the relevant departments, It is necessary to strictly limit the scope of non-disclosure and the scope of disclosure so as to prevent the relevant organs from taking an expanded interpretation of it so as to make the system empty. Specifically, information that is not formal, affects social stability, affects freedom of expression, and repetition shall not be made public. No matter the administrative organ itself or the applicant for information, they do not want the decision-making to be in low efficiency and disorder. The decision making can not be separated from these foundations and supports, and the non-disclosure can ensure the normal operation of the administrative organ. At the same time, in order to protect citizens' right to know within the legal scope, the process government information, such as factual information, should be listed. Finally, based on the current situation and referring to the experiences of other countries, some suggestions for solving this problem are put forward. As a socialist country ruled by law, the key to solve this problem is to ensure that there are laws to be followed, to make clear the scope of non-disclosure and the consequences of responsibility, and to provide institutional guarantees and reduce flexibility. For example, the principle of distinction is adopted to protect citizens' right to know, the principle of proportion in administrative law is fully used as the standard of examination, the advantages of administrative reconsideration are brought into play, and the burden of proof is reversed. Hope through these ways, can reduce the cost of relief, and thus improve administrative efficiency, convenient life.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】