本文以憲法法庭111 年憲判字第10 號判決（下稱系爭判決）為研究主軸， 聚焦於服公職權與行政懲處制度，並針對現行制度所引發之憲政及法治問題，進行系統性且全面的分析。該判決不僅明確釐清警察人員服公職權的憲法保障範圍，亦對行政懲處之正當性提出具體見解，成為本文探討法律爭議的關鍵依據。全文依序展開如下：第二章論述警察人員之基本權利與義務，指出其權利大體與一般公務人員相當，惟因職務性質特殊，結社自由受限，且須承擔更高程度的忠誠義務與服從責任。第三章回顧行政懲處制度之歷史演變與司法實務發展，說明司法院大法官釋憲逐步強化公務人員救濟權保障，尤其針對警消人員之懲處，展現出高度機關裁量空間。第四章則以徐○堯個案為例，深入分析行政懲處的適法性與適當性，並指出時代下制度對行政懲處缺乏充分司法審查，恐有侵害服公職權之虞。第五章針對判決理由及憲法法庭論述進行評析，肯認行政懲處與司法懲戒雙軌制度之合憲性，但也揭示懲處優先實施導致懲戒邊緣化的現象，建議明確區分懲處輕重並釐清獎懲抵銷適用標準，以強化程序正當性及基本權保障，進一步檢視制度設計與實務操作的合理性與合憲性。;This thesis takes Constitutional Court Interpretation No. 10 of 2022 (the 111th year of the Republic of China) as its primary research focus, concentrating on the right to hold public office and the administrative disciplinary system. It conducts a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the constitutional and rule-of-law issues arising from the current framework. The interpretation not only clearly delineates the constitutional protection scope of police officers’ right to hold public office but also offers concrete views on the legitimacy of administrative discipline, serving as a key foundation for the legal disputes examined herein.The article proceeds as follows: Chapter Two discusses the fundamental rights and duties of police personnel, noting that their rights largely correspond with those of general civil servants; however, due to the special nature of their duties, their freedom of association is restricted, and they are subject to heightened obligations of loyalty and compliance. Chapter Three reviews the historical evolution of the administrative disciplinary system and the development of judicial practice, explaining how the Constitutional Court has progressively reinforced civil servants’remedial rights, particularly highlighting the broad discretionary space afforded to authorities in disciplining police and firefighting personnel. Chapter Four uses the case of Xu ○ Yao as an example to conduct an in-depth analysis of the legality and appropriateness of administrative disciplinary measures, emphasizing that the system′s insufficient judicial review risks infringing upon the right to hold public office under contemporary conditions. Chapter Five offers an evaluation of the rationale and reasoning of the Constitutional Court′s interpretation, affirmingthe constitutionality of the dual-track system of administrative discipline and judicial sanction, while revealing the marginalization of judicial sanctions caused by the prioritization of administrative discipline. It recommends clearly distinguishing the severity levels of disciplinary measures and clarifying the standards for offsetting rewards and punishments, so as to strengthen procedural fairness and fundamental rights protection. Finally, it further examines the rationality and constitutionality of the institutional design and its practical application.
