- 期刊
總統刑事豁免權淺析－以大法官會議釋字第627號解釋爲中心
Introduction of Presidential Criminal Immunity-In the Spirit of J. Y. Interpretation No 627
摘要
本文主要介紹總統刑事豁免權的內涵，包括豁免權的之意義、規範、目的、適用範圍、時間限制及在刑事訴訟程序之性質等。並進一步討論下列重點：首先，總統之豁免權是否僅限刑罰的犯罪行為？民事有無豁免權之適用。次者，總統得否拋棄其刑事豁免權？若總統拋棄有無發生效力？再者，刑事訴訟法第167條之1規定，不問何人有為證人之義務，總統有無作證的義務？此一規定是否牴觸憲法第52條？又者，總統有無「國家機密特權」？在刑事豁免權範圍之外，總統是否仍享有國家機密特權？檢察官或法官明知總統享有刑事豁免權，但仍對之進行各項違背刑事豁免權之刑事訴追措施者，有無違反我國刑法第125條規定「濫權追訴處罰罪」？大法官會議釋字627號解釋要求立法機關應針對總統就搜索扣押之限制、拒絕證言、拒絕提交相關證物等增訂特別程序，立法院當斟酌有無增訂必要，還是讓其仍維持暫時性制度。若欲立法，本號解釋所建立暫時性制度是否全盤繼受或僅部分繼受，還是另起爐灶重新設計。另外，本號解釋也留下不少判斷空間，例如何謂「對總統身分之尊崇與職權之行使無直接關涉之措施」、「其他客觀上足認必然造成總統尊崇之損傷與職權行使之妨礙」、總統有無「自願配合其程序之進行」等等，均考驗執法者的判斷能力。至於違反者，在個案上發生之程序效果，得否可用刑事訴訟法第158條之4證據排除來解決，還是另作其他考量，皆為實務界及學界所要面對的重大難題。
並列摘要
This paper is concentrated on the content of Presidential Criminal Immunity, which includes its definition, regulation, objective, scope, time-limit and its nature when confronting criminal prosecution procedures. Furthermore, this paper brings about several key issues for detail discussions. First of all, will the Presidential Criminal Immunity be only confined to criminal charges? Will it cover the civil lawsuits? Secondly, what if the president does abandon the right of criminal Immunity? Thirdly, according to article 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, everyone being obliged to testify in court, can the president be exempted from it? Or is this contradicting the constitution article 52? Finally, besides the right of criminal immunity, does the president have the authority to classify the documents for national security purpose? As for the prosecutors or judges, already knowing the president's criminal immunity, will they be facing the risk of violating article 125 of criminal law ”abusing one's authority”, when they take judicial proceedings? Being specifically demanded by the council of Grand Justice Ruling No. 627, the Legislative Yuan is obligated to revise and promote regulatory procedures with respect to the president resisting being searched or detained, refusing to testify in court and rejecting to submit relevant evidences. The Legislative Yuan should consider the necessity of augmenting such procedure or to maintain the status quo. It is up to the Legislative Yuan to design new schemes or conduct different level of overhaul on existing preliminary injunction. In addition, the Grand Justice Ruling No.627 also leaves plenty of room for arbitrary explanation. For example, what measures may be regarded as ”not directly affecting the implementation of dignity and authority of the president”? What is ”other measures objectively considered hampering or harming the president's authority or dignity”? What criteria are to judge the president ”willingly cooperative to assist the ongoing investigation”? All this matters challenge the judging abilities of law enforcement officers. As for violation, the procedure effect in the specific case, may it be resorted to criminal law article 158(4) for solution by ruling out the evidences, or should it have other considerations? These are big issues to be faced for the judicial official and academic circle.