日治台灣「法治」的檢討：從比較法史出發

Discussion on the "Rule by Law" in Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule: A Perspective from the Comparative Legal History

小金丸貴志(Takashi Koganemaru)

指導教授 ： 王泰升

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/博士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.01458

摘要

在19世紀，西歐與日本立憲主義有很明顯的發展，同樣在這些母國以外的殖民地，殖民地法制也有相當的發展。母國本身統治權與憲法基本上一直相互作用，延伸到殖民地之母國的統治權也並不例外。於法治發達之殖民地母國，行政權力受到法令的限制，然而在其殖民地，由於某些法理，其限制被解除。簡言而之，雖然在殖民地人民權利不一定有保障，其法治狀態還能夠視為母國法治和其限制的延伸。本論文將英國（印度）、德國（膠州灣）、日本（台灣）統治法制互相比較，透過比較法的觀點試圖發現，日治時期台灣統治法制特有的特徵如何。
英國法上，跟人身自由有關係的重要權利保障依據「人身保護令狀（Habeas Corpus）。但若看其沿革，其保護的本質是以國王與臣民的忠誠契約關係為其前提的由國王大權的介入，並且在英國殖民地，該令狀的發出受到各種理由加以限制。19世紀德國是跟日本同樣的立憲君主國，但關於其「保護領」，德國官方和公法學界站在憲法不施行說，因此憲法典上的「法律保留（Vorbehalt des Gesetzes）」未有延伸到殖民地。然而在統治台灣，日本政府從最初期採用憲法施行說，所以至少形式上在台灣可考慮例外狀態（例如初期軍政、臨機處分、理蕃行政）和憲法之下的法治。總之，前者的範圍有限，但後者的基本法制依據著名的六三法，即對於台灣總督的立法範圍無限制之委任立法（律令權）。在這個架構之下，在刑事法令的領域快速出現了「依用」習慣，即在台沒有施行之刑法仍透過律令被依用而適用。然而既然還沒有其施行，律令自由地能制定其事實上的台灣特例。處死幾千人的「匪徒刑罰令」是其一例。本文使用《日治法院檔案》為資料，大致就被告兩千六百人的匪徒罪判決進行分析，確認該令是由委任立法侵害人權之最重要的例子。這樣在日治台灣，憲法的法律保留因為委任立法受到侵害，這可謂是日治台灣法治狀態的最大的特徵。
但在日治後期，匪徒刑罰令的適用消滅，關於社會上的權利侵害，警察權成為更重要的問題。警察活動分為警察犯（司法）和檢束（行政），但在台灣的警察活動的程度至少統計上跟內地警察活動比較近。總之而言，在日治時期憲法統治之下，立法權（憲法＝委任立法＝法律保留＝罪刑法定主義＝刑事司法）所發揮之人權侵害，規模與內容上遙遠超過由行政權（一般統治權＝警察權＝行政裁量），可謂是立法權的暴力。

關鍵字

日治時期 ； 殖民地法制 ； 委任立法 ； 憲法 ； 警察權 ； 法治

並列摘要

It is widely accepted that constitutionalism – separation of powers – has made a fundamental development in the 19th century, whereas much less attention has been paid to the colonial law of the same century, which also played a significant role in the mother nations overseas territories. During the period, constitution steadily functioned with the ruling power in these mother nations, and it was not totally irrelevant even when the ruling power ran into the colonies, as mother nation’s political systems were already based on their constitutions. Whereas administrative power should be subject to the limitation by law in mother nations, the limitation would sometimes be lifted for some reason in the colonies. This thesis focuses its attention on this legal situation that could be seen as mother nation’s rule of law and its limitation, and by comparing Taiwan under Japanese rule with British India and Kiautschou, the German Schutzgebiet in China, tries to find what could be regarded as peculiar features of the Japanese colonial ruling system.
In English law, protection of basic rights, those concerning physical freedom in particular, depends on habeas corpus, a procedural remedy for the accused in court. However, if its historical background was considered, the legal nature of its protection is the intervention of royal prerogative, on the condition of the reciprocal contract relations between the king and his subjects. However in British India, issuance of the writ was often suspended by the court for some reasons, making the legal protection less active than in the mother country. Germany in the 19th century was constitutional monarchy like Japan, however for its “Schutzgebiet”, the german government and public law jurists took the stance of non-extension of its constitution. The “vorbehalt des Gesetzes” therefore did not always extend to its colonies. On the other hand in Taiwan, the Japanese government supported the stance of extending its constitution since the very early period. In Taiwan, the extent of exceptional situation such as military administration in the early stage, summary execution, and aboriginal administration and constitutional administration was limited. The constitutional ruling depended on the famous “Act No. 63 of 1896”, which comperehensively delegated the Diet’s legislative power to the Governor-General’s order (Ritsurei). Under this system, a new custom of quoting the content of the laws of Japan proper that were not yet enforced in Taiwan, through the form of Ritsurei, rapidly appeared in the area of criminal law. For example, Criminal Code quoted by Ritsurei was never enforced in Taiwan, therefore other Ritsureis could freely set any “modifications” on the Criminal Code. A classic example of this custom was the famous “Bandit Punishment Ordinance” that sentenced death to thousands. This thesis used the judgment documents of the about 2,600 accused by the ordinance, which were found in the “Taiwan Colonial Court Records Archives”, to find the court’s theory and its statistical overview. It was confirmed that the most significant vioration of basic rights under constitution was made by this ordinance, suggesting that the most important legal feature of Japanese rule was infringement on the “vorbehalt des Gesetzes” through delegated legislation.
In the latter half of the Japanese rule the ordinance was no longer used, and the police power played more important role concerning the infringement of the basic rights. Police activity could be classified into police offenses (judiciary) and administrative detention. When compared to the huge discrepancy in legislation between Japan proper and Taiwan, in the area of police power the difference seems to be much smaller. As a whole, under the Japanese constitutional rule, legislative element (constitution, delegated legislation, Vorbehalt des Gesetzes, nulla poena sine lege, criminal justice) exerted in size and quality far larger infringement on basic rights than the administrative element (ruling power, police power, administrative discretion), which could be described as “violence by legislation”.

並列關鍵字

Taiwan under Japanese rule ； colonial law ； delegated legislation ； police power ； constitution

參考文獻

1999　《台灣日治時期的法律改革》，台北：聯經。

2010　《具有法律思維的法學：結合台灣法律社會史與法律論證》台北：元照。

2000　《刑事訴訟法》，台北：林鈺雄。

2011　〈試論：明治天皇と日本領有初期の台湾統治〉，《淡江日本論叢》，第23輯，頁231－253。

2012　〈匪徒刑罰令與其附屬法令之制定經緯〉，《台灣史研究》，第19卷第2期，頁31－98。