行政处罚决定公开的程序构造与规范路径
The Procedural Structure and Normative Path of the Publication of Administrative Penalty Decisions
摘要: 《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第四十八条确立的行政处罚决定公开制度,本质上是一种贯穿行政处罚全流程的行政程序。该程序以公共利益的保护和权力规制为核心价值,通过信息公开的事实行为发挥社会警示与间接强制功能。但实践中,处罚决定公开程序存在适用标准模糊、操作流程不规范、救济不足等问题,导致公开不足与公开过度并存。行政处罚决定公开的规范运行需立足其事后公开属性与事实行为定位,从程序目的、适用标准、操作流程、监督救济等维度构建全链条的程序控制体系,通过差异化处理与过程性规制,实现行政程序透明度与行政相对人权益保护的动态平衡,推动行政执法程序的法治化与规范化。
Abstract: The system for the publication of administrative penalty decisions established by Article 48 of the “Administrative Penalty Law” is essentially an administrative procedure running through the entire process of administrative penalties. Centered on the core values of public interest protection and power regulation, this procedure performs the functions of social warning and indirect coercion through the factual act of information disclosure. Nevertheless, in practice, the publication procedure of administrative penalty decisions is plagued by ambiguous applicable criteria, non-standardized operational protocols, and inadequate remedial mechanisms, resulting in the coexistence of insufficient and excessive disclosure. To ensure the normative operation of the publication of administrative penalty decisions, it is imperative to ground the analysis in its ex post disclosure attribute and its characterization as a factual act, and to construct a comprehensive, full-chain procedural control system encompassing the dimensions of procedural objectives, applicable standards, operational protocols, and supervisory remedies. Through differentiated treatment and process-based regulation, a dynamic equilibrium between administrative procedural transparency and the protection of the interests of administrative counterparties can be achieved, thereby advancing the legalization and standardization of administrative enforcement procedures.
文章引用:王丁. 行政处罚决定公开的程序构造与规范路径[J]. 法学, 2026, 14(6): 82-88. https://doi.org/10.12677/ojls.2026.146166

参考文献

[1] 杨炳超. 论美国宪法的正当程序原则——兼论我国对该原则的借鉴[J]. 法学论坛, 2004(6): 91-97.
[2] 周佑勇. 行政法的正当程序原则[J]. 中国社会科学, 2004(4): 115-124.
[3] 胡建淼. 行政处罚法论——基于《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 2025: 25-27.
[4] 张途. 基本权利应当被公共利益限制吗? [J]. 比较法研究, 2024(4): 163-175.
[5] 熊樟林. 论作为“权力”的行政处罚决定公开[J]. 政治与法律, 2023(2): 141-159.
[6] 赵鹏. 风险社会的自由与安全——风险规制的兴起及其对传统行政法原理的挑战[J]. 交大法学, 2011, 2(1): 43-60.
[7] 王瑞雪. 论行政处罚决定有限公开规则[J]. 环球法律评论, 2023, 45(3): 114-128.
[8] 雷宇. 声誉机制的信任基础研究[M]. 北京: 经济科学出版社, 2018: 22.
[9] 马琳昆. 论行政处罚决定公开的判定规则[J]. 行政法学研究, 2024(4): 97-111.
[10] 王瑞雪. 声誉罚的梯度构造[J]. 法学家, 2024(2): 28-40, 192.
[11] 孙丽岩. 论行政处罚决定公开的利益权衡——从与刑事制裁公开的对比角度[J]. 政法论坛, 2021, 39(6): 70-83.
[12] 杨登峰, 李晴. 行政处罚中比例原则与过罚相当原则的关系之辨[J]. 交大法学, 2017(4): 9-21.
[13] 张翔. 公共利益限制基本权利的逻辑[J]. 法学论坛, 2005, 20(1): 24-27.
[14] 翁明杰. 行政处罚决定公开过程中的裁量权及其规范路径[J]. 财经法学, 2023(2): 97-111.
[15] 马迅. 行政限制从业的角色定位、实效保障与体系协调[J]. 行政法学研究, 2022(6): 139-148.
[16] 刘文凯. 行政处罚决定公开的制度分流与规范路径[J]. 理论月刊, 2024(3): 134-142.
[17] 阮晨欣. 个人信息被遗忘权的刑法保护规则研究[J]. 法学杂志, 2023, 44(6): 121-135.