動物園資訊公開管制規範之探討-最高行政法院101 年度判字第171 號判決評釋


蔡達智

中文摘要

有關社團法人台灣動物社會研究會請求交付大貓熊進口專家審 查會議紀錄與六福村動物園申請進口、圈養、繁殖、展示文件,最 高行政法院101 年度判字第171 號判決幾乎完全採納被告主管機關 即行政院農業委員會的見解,以沒有會議紀錄,會議紀錄內容屬於 內部作業準備文件,私人動物園申請文件屬於私人權益營業秘密與 經營資訊,拒絕原告所請。 其中未考量我國非大貓熊原始棲地,進口大貓熊圈養展示繁 殖,是否有高度公益必要性,應詳加檢視其背後具有的堅強理由說 明,不應技術上以法規概念的推演任意選擇,配合政策決定,使學 者專家失去公正客觀的立場,也使法院判決多了政治正確、迎合一 般民眾欣賞珍奇異獸的好奇感,忘卻原始棲地保育大貓熊才是最好 保育野生動物的方法,而不是一輩子關在動物園。如欲持續監督動物園是否能夠維持當初進口許可的目的,應藉 由建立完整良善的動物園動物資訊系統檢視,一方面藉由聘任專業 人員建置動物資訊蒐集、處理、分析與流用程序,以為因應基本的 法定義務紀錄資訊,二方面亦可藉由資訊系統客觀的紀錄與分析, 提升動物保育的環境、條件,同時與世界各地其他動物園甚至包括 動保團體的第三人和平、理性、公開交流,避免不必要的價值選擇 對立與衝突,浪費太多時間、精神與經費在動物資訊公開的爭訟程 序。

 

A Study on the Regulatory Standards for Zoo’s Information Disclosure -Commenting on the (101) No.171 Decision Rendered by the Supreme Administrative Court

Ta-Chih Tsai

abstract

In the case of No. 171 of the Supreme Administrative Court's Judgment in 2012, the plaintiff, the Environment & Animal Society of Taiwan, requested disclosure of of information related with the Giant Panda import expert review records produced by the Council of Agriculture of Executive Yuan and the private Leofoo zoo’s import, breeding, mating, exhibit application documents, the court almost completely accepted all the nondisclosure opinions form the defendant. As there was no meeting record; even there were some records about Q&A between review experts and zoos, the records shall be deem as the internal official preparation documents that cannot to be disclose for the reason to protect any staff from unnecessary bothering or silent effects. Besides, any information concerned the private zoo application documents shall under protection as private business secrets and business information property so as the same cannot offer to the plaintiff. Unfortunately, these not good sounding reasons do not review prudential carefully that Taiwan is not the primitive habitat for Giant Panda and should not have any importation anyone of them far from China. Otherwise, it will take much higher life risks to catch, transfer the precious and vulnerable animal from native country into strange foreign zoo cage. Even the authority granted the final importing decision, it should have more reasonable to persuade people in Taiwan or even all over the world why we have to import, breed and displace these two Giant Pandas in captivity to Taiwan. The authority and the court should not rely only on the prima facet terms of Freedom of Information Act, and technically select the political rightest interpretation of the wording meanings of the Act while not take into consideration with the public interest to protect the wildlife naturally. Apparently, the administrative authority and the court made decision on the side with politician and the popularity of the people who want to see the animal for curiosity not base on the conservative or educational purposes. Most of them forgot that if there were nothing else other than protecting the ecosystem of wild Giant Pandas, it will do not have any meaning for these two cute animals staying in the brilliant glasses cage at the zoo for all lifetime. However, one of the best way to continue to monitor whether the zoo can maintain the original import license, it should be based and rely on the establishment of a complete zoo animal information system. By hiring professionals to establish animal information collection, processing, analysis and disclosure procedures, may qualify the basic legal obligation for any animal information that necessary to submitted to the authority office. A professional animal information system can enhance the environment and conditions of animal conservation through objective records and analysis. At the same time, it can communicate peacefully, rationally and openly with other zoos around the world and even any third parties including the animal protection groups. That will have the chance to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding or even conflicts among people bringing unreasonable information disclosure issues into the court.