【摘要】：紀(jì)委在當(dāng)前反貪腐中取得赫赫功績(jī)有其特定原因,同時(shí)也存在法治化轉(zhuǎn)型問(wèn)題。國(guó)家監(jiān)察委員會(huì)的設(shè)立能不能在法治化方面取得進(jìn)步,取決于能否突破法律的正當(dāng)程序困境以及國(guó)家權(quán)力設(shè)置的科學(xué)化考量。本文探討了國(guó)家監(jiān)察委員會(huì)的權(quán)力來(lái)源和權(quán)力構(gòu)成,指出香港、新加坡廉政機(jī)構(gòu)模式并非反腐敗機(jī)制改革的唯一選項(xiàng),重新"武裝"檢察機(jī)關(guān),地位設(shè)定得當(dāng)、職權(quán)配置到位、偵查措施得力以及程序調(diào)整適當(dāng),檢察機(jī)關(guān)同樣可以達(dá)到紀(jì)委辦案的境界。若以三權(quán)學(xué)說(shuō)劃分國(guó)家權(quán)力,新的監(jiān)察權(quán)仍屬于行政權(quán)范疇;若不以三權(quán)學(xué)說(shuō)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn),監(jiān)察權(quán)當(dāng)然可以視為立法權(quán)之下與行政權(quán)、司法權(quán)并立的權(quán)力即監(jiān)察權(quán),沒(méi)有必要定位為"執(zhí)法監(jiān)督權(quán)"。國(guó)家監(jiān)察委員會(huì)行使類(lèi)似刑事偵查的權(quán)力應(yīng)當(dāng)受到刑事訴訟法的約束,留置與逮捕有著相同的實(shí)質(zhì),應(yīng)依照憲法規(guī)定納入司法權(quán)控制的范圍。國(guó)家監(jiān)察委員會(huì)查辦犯罪案件,應(yīng)當(dāng)允許律師為被調(diào)查人提供法律幫助。我國(guó)建立新監(jiān)察制度,需要考慮將檢察機(jī)關(guān)的法律監(jiān)督延伸至國(guó)家監(jiān)察委員會(huì)的調(diào)查領(lǐng)域。另外,本文建議保留人民檢察院對(duì)于瀆職侵權(quán)案件的偵查權(quán),形成監(jiān)察權(quán)和偵查權(quán)的相互制約關(guān)系。
[Abstract]:The Commission for discipline Inspection has its own specific reasons for its achievements in the current fight against corruption, as well as the problem of rule-of-law transformation. Whether the establishment of the National Supervisory Commission can make progress in the rule of law depends on whether it can break through the due process dilemma of the law and the scientific consideration of the establishment of the state power. This paper discusses the source of power and the composition of power of the State Supervisory Commission, and points out that Hong Kong and Singapore's model of clean government is not the only option for reforming the anti-corruption mechanism. It is necessary to re-"arm" the procuratorial organs, properly set the status, and put the powers in place. Effective investigation measures and proper adjustment of procedures, procuratorial organs can also reach the boundary of discipline inspection commission to handle cases. If the state power is divided by the theory of "three powers", the new power of supervision still belongs to the category of administrative power; Without taking the theory of "three powers" as the standard, the supervisory power can of course be regarded as the supervisory power under the legislative power and the executive power, and the judicial power is the supervisory power, and there is no need to position it as the "supervisory power of law enforcement". The exercise of powers similar to criminal investigation by the State Supervisory Commission should be bound by the Criminal procedure Law, the retention and arrest have the same substance, and should be brought into the scope of judicial power control according to the constitutional provisions. The State Supervisory Commission shall allow lawyers to provide legal assistance to the persons under investigation in the investigation of criminal cases. In order to establish a new supervision system in China, it is necessary to extend the legal supervision of procuratorial organs to the investigation field of the State Supervisory Commission. In addition, this paper proposes to retain the people's procuratorate's power to investigate cases of malfeasance and tort, and to form the mutual restriction relationship between the power of supervision and the power of investigation.
【作者單位】： 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院;教育部2011計(jì)劃司法文明協(xié)同創(chuàng)新中心;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.11

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 ;縣(市)人民政府人民監(jiān)察委員會(huì)試行組織通則[J];山西政報(bào);1952年03期

2 ;山西省人民政府人民監(jiān)察委員會(huì)關(guān)于重申“為貫徹執(zhí)行政務(wù)院關(guān)于嚴(yán)防森林火災(zāi)”指示的通令[J];山西政報(bào);1952年08期

3 ;山西省人民政府人事廳 人民監(jiān)察委員會(huì)為轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)中央關(guān)于干部懲戒中若干問(wèn)題解答的聯(lián)合通知[J];山西政報(bào);1953年21期

4 ;江西省人民政府人民監(jiān)察委員會(huì)組織條例[J];江西政報(bào);1951年01期

5 ;江西省人民政府人民監(jiān)察委員會(huì)組織條例[J];江西政報(bào);1951年Z1期

6 ;山西省人民政府人民監(jiān)察委員會(huì)關(guān)于有關(guān)執(zhí)行“行政處分”的幾個(gè)具體問(wèn)題的解答[J];山西政報(bào);1953年18期

7 本刊編輯部;劉婷婷;雨晨;;在煎烤中重塑政法職能[J];法治與社會(huì);2014年04期

8 ;[J];;年期

，

本文編號(hào)：2430287