- 期刊
司法院大法官比例原則違憲審查標準之探究：兼評釋字第五八四號解釋
Exploration on the Standards of Judicial Review Concerning the Principle of Proportionality in ROC Constitutional Court--Constitutional Analysis on J. Y. Interpretation No. 584
摘要
我國釋憲實務有關違憲審查標準理論之引進，主要係司法院大法官基於「司法自制」之體悟，因此，儘管歷年來釋憲實務並未開宗明義的將審查標準放置在解釋文及其理由書中，但在大法官意見書中仍有不少欲將之嵌入本土解釋案例者，或將之依附於比例原則，或將之依附於平等原則，或採行美國法的審查標準，或採行德國法的審查標準。惟美國法的審查標準是否即等同德國法的審查標準？此等外來的違憲審查標準是否可斷然異質移植？或者仍須予以相容性的調整，並配合我國憲法融合本土經驗進行修正，以呈現本土化之特有風貌？本文擬以比例原則違憲審查標準作為研究主題，針對釋憲實務歷年來的發展予以經驗性的建構，並以釋字第五八四號為例，進行問題分析與探討。經研究發現，由於中度審查標準的界定不易，除非釋憲實務有極大的共識並有一套明確的方針以供指引，否則一旦冒然採行，恐將衍生更多操作上之問題。實則在從寬、從嚴雙重基準的原則性大前提下，如能搭配「滑動尺度理論」根據規範對基本權的影響程度、限制程度予以利益衡量，不僅可解決「對號入座式」的僵固問題，抑且亦與現階段的釋憲實務發展相容。凡此均有待釋憲實務更進一步的發展以為釐清與建構！
並列摘要
Laws do not violate the principle of proportionality if they have the due purposes, necessary means, and proper restrictions required by Article 23 of the Constitution. In other words, if the legislature chooses a means to an end and considers that the means will be helpful to the achievement of justifiable legislative purposes, and that there is available no other alternative means to attain the same purposes with less harm, the law should not be deemed to be inconsistent with the principle of proportionality embodied in Article 23 of the Constitution insofar as the restriction imposed by the means on the fundamental right is proportional to the importance of the legal interest intended by the lawmakers to be placed under protection. This study attempts to explore the standards of judicial review concerning the principle of proportionality that have been applied in ROC Constitutional Court, and tries to analyze J. Y. Interpretation No. 584 in terms of the principle of proportionality.