《监察法》监察强制措施体系的结构性缺失与重构  

The Structural Deficiency in and Reconstruction of the Compulsory Measure System in Supervision Law

作　　者：魏昌东[1] WEI Changdong(Institute of Law,Shanghai Acedemy of Social Sciences,Shanghai 200020)

机构地区：[1]上海社会科学院法学研究所

出　　处：《南京师大学报（社会科学版）》2020年第1期108-119,共12页Journal of Nanjing Normal University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：国家社科基金重大课题“中国特色反腐败国家立法体系建设重大理论与现实问题研究”(17ZDA135)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：监察调查权是中国特色国家监察权的重要职能之一,职务犯罪调查权的侦查权属性要求配置必要的监察强制措施。《监察法》就监察强制措施的立法设定存在审慎性上的缺失,由此导致监察调查权运行中的诸多理论与实践困境:监察留置具有羁押属性,却被立法者定性为调查取证手段,实则违背了诉讼基本原理;监察调查缺少强制到案的法定功能,导致职务违法、犯罪行为的发现障碍;监察强制候审措施的单一化立法配置,仅留置能够发挥候审羁押的效果,既不符合人权保障的法治理念,也将过多消耗国家有限的诉讼资源,对此,应当融贯式借鉴《刑事诉讼法》的规定,构建"梯度式"监察强制措施体系,并增加"执业禁止类"的强制措施类型。Investigation is one of the important functions of the power of supervision with Chinese characteristics. However,there is a lack of prudence in the legislation of supervisory compulsory measures in Supervision Law,which leads to many theoretical and practical dilemmas in the operation of supervisory power of investigation: supervisory detention has the nature of custody,but it is defined as a means of investigation and evidence collection by legislators,which actually violates the basic principles of litigation;supervisory investigation lacks the legal function of compulsory access to cases,which will lead to difficulties in discovering duty violations and criminal acts. Furthermore,in the supervisory compulsory measure system based on inadequate legislative support,only the measure of detention can play an effective pretrial compulsory function. This is not in line with the legal concept of human rights protection and will also consume the limited litigation resources of the country. In this regard,we should learn from the provisions in Criminal Procedure Law in a consistent way,build a"gradient"system of compulsory supervision measures,and add such compulsory measures as"prohibiting the practice of one’s profession".

关 键 词：监察调查权 监察强制措施 留置 体系重构 

分 类 号：D922.11[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]