我國有關正當法律程序原則之憲法依據,雖未如美國聯邦憲法增修條文第五條及第十四條第一項明白揭示「正當法律程序」用語,但卻於憲法第八條第一項有著如同日本憲法第三十一條所揭示之「法定程序」用語。惟所謂的「法定程序」,究指系爭程序只要以法律規定即可?或者須以「正當的」法律規定始足當之?換言之,「法定程序」是否與美國的「正當法律程序」同義?日本多數學說乃抱持肯定態度,我國憲法第八條第一項既為同樣的用語,是否亦可作相同之詮釋?此外,我國憲法第八條第一項有關正當法律程序之要求,自文義觀之,主要係針對「人民身體之自由」而來,且僅適用於逮捕、拘禁、審問、處罰之法定程序,故在適用普遍性方面,乃遠不及美國與日本。究竟憲法第八條之「正當法律程序」之內涵為何?其適用之基本權與程序種類是否可以根據人權保障的憲法精神予以擴充?或者憲法第八條文義以外之其他情形尚須另覓其他的法理基礎?而不同的基本權及程序種類是否須相應給予不同的程序密度要求?亦即此等正當法律程序原則之違憲審查標準為何?凡此均為本文所欲探討者。
The grand justices have been conscious of the importance of judicial self-restraint through the processes of applying the standards of judicial review in ROC constitutional court, but until recently there have been few systemic investigations of the regular density in practice. This study aims to generalize the standard of judicial review concerning the principle of due process of law from a collection of interpretations concerning human rights made by grand justices over the years, and observe its constitutional basis and the factors that affect the grand justices to apply the standard to different cases. Finally, this study will try to build the standard of judicial review concerning the principle of due process of law applied in ROC constitutional court, so that the human righs will be ensured at its best.