| Summary: | 碩士 === 南華大學 === 亞太研究所 === 93 === The incinerator establishment process in Yunlin County result in the political event of violent resistance by local public, which not only bring the first deposing polling of township governor in the history of local autonomy, but the County magistrate even became the first incumbent county magistrate that had been listed as wanted and detained. In one hand, this case has highlighted that the existing “Environmental Impact Assessment Act” could not protect the participation of public, and result in the expression of their requests through the resistance campaign outside of the system; on the other hand, it also highlighted the fault of law design, which result in the difficulty for public official to “execute according laws”. Furthermore, because of the imperfect system, decision maker could not handle public opinions completely and mired in unknown difficulties while making decisions.
Because law in Taiwan was received to continental law system, which is usually “More emphasized at substantive than procedure”; however, the “Due Process of law” originated from the fifth amendment of Federal Constitution of US has almost been considered as the universal value. This could be demonstrated from the continuous strengthen on “Due Process of Law” by the explanation from grand justice council of these years in Taiwan. The establishment and execution of “Administrative Procedure Act” in Taiwan could be described as the concretization of on due process of law in Constitute. This article attempts to make a systematic discussion of the origin of due process of law, explanation from the Grand Justice Council and the regulation of “Administrative Procedure Act” at due process of law, and expecting to establish administrative institution’s correct perception of “Due Process of Law”.
The establishment process of incinerator in Yunlin County is mainly based on the “Environmental Impact Assessment Act”; however existing environmental impact assessment system does not have the system for public participation, and the “Duo-competent Authorities” system has the suspicion of “Self-judgment” in the practical operation of county/city government and could not develop the effect of “Undertake own responsibility and supervise each other”. This article attempts discuss the faults of exiting environment evaluation system, like “with public participation”, “Duo-competent Authorities”, “Two Steps Procedure” and “The Review Committee”, from “Environmental Impact Assessment Act”, and propose way of improvement.
Finally, is to address personal opinions from scholar and individual for the association application and how shall institution control the participation of public for the “Administrative Procedure Act” and other laws, and address specific recommendation for the amendment of “Environmental Impact Assessment Act” and “Administrative Procedure Act”.
|
|---|
