台灣因應公衛緊急事件之法制變遷與省思（1945年迄今）

2019年底出現COVID-19新型傳染病後，疫情迅速蔓延到諸多國家。為了即時有效防疫，台灣政府曾採取不同尋常的管制措施，其中部分作為缺乏明確妥適的法源依據，引發是否過度限制個人權利的問題。目前學界已有針對特定防疫措施與法律條文之探討，本文則從法律史角度，觀察從1945年起迄今，台灣因應重大疫情的各種法規範，釐清公衛緊急權法制的整體面貌與長期變遷，基於歷史回顧與省思，提出改革之建議方向。從1945年至1991年，最高位階之訓政時期約法、憲法、動員戡亂時期臨時條款、與法律層級之傳染病防治條例，共同奠定公衛緊急權的法制基礎。1991年後，相關法規迅速發展。立法院屢次修訂傳染病防治法，擴大防治對象與措施，強化公衛政府組織及其權力。當台灣發生SARS、COVID-19重大疫情時，立法院亦特別制定限時法，設立防疫與紓困的組織、措施、經費。此外，司法院大法官解釋陸續闡述了總統緊急命令權的內涵與程序，以及立法規定防疫措施應符合之要求。隨著常態性與臨時性防疫法規的增加，台灣因應公衛緊急事件的政府權力也逐漸膨脹，法律卻缺乏相對應的調整與限制。本文建議未來的法制改革，應明確區別不同輕重緩急的疫情事件與法律手段，推動緊急命令法制化，及訂立公衛緊急權力的專章或專法。在制定法規範時，更應注意條文內容必須遵循憲法原則，確保公衛緊急權之必要、有效、相稱、與公平，以落實人權法治的精神，兼顧身心健康與自由權利之保障。

關鍵字

公共衛生緊急事件；緊急權力；個人權利；緊急命令；傳染病防治法；法治國原則

並列摘要

After COVID-19 emerged at the end of 2019, the pandemic has spread to most corners of the globe over the past few years. In response to this unprecedented public health crisis, the Taiwanese government implemented rigorous measures to contain the virus. Nonetheless, the far-reaching measures may surpass existing regulations and potentially violate human rights. These challenges underscore the difficulty of striking a balance between individual liberty, health, and security during emergencies. To delve into this issue within the context of Taiwan, this article provides a comprehensive examination of laws in response to public health emergencies since 1945, aiming to understand the legal changes and their implications. According to this research, the history of public health emergency laws in Taiwan can be divided into two periods. From 1945 to 1991, the constitutional provisions of presidential emergency decrees and the Communicable Disease Control Act laid the legal foundation for governmeent powers to address health emergencies. Since 1991, the laws concerning public health emergencies have developed rapidly and dynamically. The Legislative Yuan has continually amended the Communicable Disease Control Act to broaden the range of regulated diseases and prevention measures. Special laws were promptly enacted to deal with the urgent needs and issues stemming from the SARS and COVID-19 pandemics. Moreover, the Constitutional Court's interpretations have clarified the authority and limitations of the executive and legislative branches in handling public health crises. As an increasing number of legislations have granted the government more powers to address public health emergencies, the laws lack clear standards and restrictions on these powers. This article advocates for legal reforms to differentiate legal measures based on the varying degrees of urgency and significance. The legislature may enact laws on emergency decrees, amend the Communicable Disease Control Act, or create a specific act that provides a comprehensive legal framework for all public health emergencies. Furthermore, the regulations should adhere to constitutional principles, ensuring that emergency powers are necessary, effective, proportionate, and fair. This approach aims to uphold rights protection and the rule of law while safeguarding public health and individual liberties.