透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.173.214.79
  • 學位論文

集會無理?遊行有罪!- 集會遊行管制的歷史形塑與法律實踐 -

Regulating the Freedom of Assembly and Demonstration: History and Legal Practice

指導教授 : 陳昭如

摘要


長久以來,《集會遊行法》一直是法律學者與民間社運團體抨擊的對象,不管是許可制或是特別刑罰,一直被認為是箝制集會自由的不當限制,雖然有許多人為了修正集遊法四處奔走,但總是功虧一簣。 既有學術文獻對於集遊法的解釋已有相當豐富的研究,但對於集遊法現在的樣貌,卻很少有人能清楚地說明制定與演變的過程。本論文從歷史的角度切入,希望能夠回答「《集會遊行法》如何形塑?」與「《集會遊行法》如何維持?」等兩個過去較少受到研究者關注的問題,為現行集會遊行管制措施的過去梳理出一條較明確的脈絡。另外,過去對集遊法的研究偏重法釋義學,導致法院實務的分析十分不足,身為法律系的學生,「法院如何看待集會遊行、如何適用集遊法?」也是非常值得探究的議題,筆者花費許多時間與心力,蒐集整理許多歷年有關集遊法的判決,並進行初步的統計分析,也從歷史觀點說明法院實務見解的演變趨勢。 透過對史料的分析,筆者發現現行集遊法的許多管制措施,其實不假外求,從戒嚴時期陸續頒布的許多用來管制集會的臨時法規,就可清楚見到現行規定的前身,是專屬於臺灣本土的法規脈絡。1980年代初期開始,從臺灣底層社會迸發的自力救濟風潮雖然動搖國民黨威權統治的基礎,但也因為政治自由化尚未進展到國會全面改選,因此在立法院仍由國民黨佔絕對多數的情況下,為了繼續鞏固國民黨的執政優勢、維護社會秩序,1988年《動員戡亂時期集會遊行法》的制定初衷乃是以箝制在野黨的表現自由與壓迫民間反對力量為主要目的。 集遊法在制定之後,雖然屢次受到在野的民進黨挑戰,但由於國民黨在立法院中始終擁有壓倒性的優勢,因此一直無法去除集遊法中的不當限制。2000年,民進黨成為執政黨之後,雖然其在野時總是傾向放鬆集遊法的管制,但其執政後卻跟國民黨執政時一樣,全力維護集遊法之管制的必要性,反過來以集遊法壓迫國民黨發起的集會遊行。這一現象顯示集遊法的管制措施確實有利於執政黨壓迫在野黨,穩定政權。2006年到2008年,臺灣民間先後因為「倒扁行動」與「野草苺學運」,從社會底層發起兩次知名的集體行動,兩次行動醞釀出的修法芻議也獲得國民黨與其總統候選人馬英九的支持,學者與社運團體努力十餘年的修法似乎即將成功。但當風潮過去、選舉結束,政治人物又開始對修法興趣缺缺,顯示重大社會事件而引起的修法風潮,雖然能引發輿論關心,但也常因為朝野之間激烈的政爭,導致雙方無法就集遊法的修正尋得共識,因而拖延修法的進度。政治人物也不是真的對集會自由那麼關心,只是見民氣可用,暫時把集遊法拿來當作鬥爭的工具,而政治人物能夠長期對修法愛理不理,也證明修正集遊法,保障集會自由對普羅大眾而言並不迫切,所以機關首長、立法委員們也根本感受不到社會壓力,到目前為止,集遊法的修正都是為了因應外在環境的變更,由民間或在野黨發起的修法從未成功。 在整理完檢方依集遊法第29條起訴,經過審判的判決書之後,筆者發現被告有無律師協助與是否上訴二審,此兩點對被告能否獲無罪判決有重大影響,這可能使經濟比較弱勢的族群因無力負擔律師與訴訟費,而自願放棄以集會遊行這個他們少數能用來引起社會注目的發聲管道,顯示集遊法的制度確實對於集會自由憲法功能的實踐有不良的影響。但是,觀察二十餘年來法院在認定被告是否該當集遊法29條之罪時,可發現其對事實的具體認定標準,以及決心落實集遊法規定之比例原則的態度,都有漸漸向對被告有利、或是較保障集會自由的方向傾斜的趨勢。這些見解雖尚未形成主流實務見解,且在學理上可能也還有爭議,但也說明負責解釋、適用法律的司法部門在某程度上確實有辦法透過實踐來矯正法規範的不當,彌補行政與立法機關的缺失。但最終的治本之道,還是必須透過修法,使集遊法真正回歸保障集會自由的精神,否則威權時代的遺緒將永遠留存在集遊法中,像蠹蟲般不知不覺地啃蝕民主自由的根基。

並列摘要


“Assembly and Parade Act” has already been criticized by scholars of law and some groups of social movements for a long time. Many regulations, including the ones regarding the request for permission of assembly and the penalties for those people who violate the regulations, are widely thought as improper rules because they seriously restrict people’s freedom of assembly. Researches on the legal interpretations of “Assembly and Parade Act” nowadays are relatively abundant, but few people are able to clearly interpret the legislation and the alteration of “Assembly and Parade Act”. From the perspective of history, I am going to answer the two following questions: “How ‘Assembly and Parade Act’ made” and “Why ‘Assembly and Parade Act’ could keep its restrictive spirit for a long time.” By finding out the results of these two questions that were seldom discussed, I was able to conclude a clearly historical context of “Assembly and Parade Act”. Moreover, I also noticed that past studies on “Assembly and Parade Act” heavily focused on the legal interpretations and that there were few analysis on the legal practices of “Assembly and Parade Act” for further studies. I, also found that “How judges view assemblies and parades” and “How judges apply ‘Assembly and Parade Act’ in reality” are also issues that are worth studying. After collecting many judgements of “Assembly and Parade Act” and analyzing their contents, I am going to discuss the evolution of judges’ legal opinions from the perspective of history in this thesis. According to my historical research, I found out that many regulations similar to today’s “Assembly and Parade Act” were seen in early administrative rules enacted by “Taiwan Garrison Command” or other governmental organizations during “The period of Martial Law (from 1949-1987)”. That is, many restrictive regulations about assembly and procession were not totally fresh in 1988 – the year in which “Assembly and Parade Act” was firstly legislated. Since the early 1980s, Taiwan people had launched a series of collective protests because of various reasons, and those protests successfully weaken the power of “Kuomintang (KMT)”. However, in order to consolidate their power and keep the public order stable, KMT decided to enact a new act with strong restrictive spirit to regulate the assemblies and processions of people when they still had far more legislators in Legislative Yuan than their opponent – Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) did. A few years after “Assembly and Parade Act” was legislated, the legislators of DPP kept fighting for modifying the act in Legislative Yuan. They did not succeed until 2000 because they could not win enough seats in Legislative Yuan to help them defeat KMT and achieve this political target. In 2000, for the first time, DPP won the presidential election, and in 2002, they won more seats than any other parties in Legislative Yuan. This was seemingly a good opportunity to modify the “Assembly and Parade Act.” Unfortunately, during the eight years that DPP were in power, from 2000 to 2008, they not only never tried to modify “Assembly and Parade Act”, but also thwarted the proposals from legislators of KMT to modify “Assembly and Parade Act.” The apparent history truth is that, when a political party is not in office, they tend to advocate that people should be guaranteed the right to assembly and procession and claim that “Assembly and Parade Act” have to be revised to correspond to modern democratic trend. On the other hand, the incumbent party is likely to claim that the contents of “Assembly and Parade Act” are perfectly reasonable and require no modification. Finally, my analysis of results of criminal judgements on “Assembly and Parade Act” shows that hiring a lawyer and appealing to higher court play a vital role for the outcomes of litigations. Statistics show that defendants that hired lawyers or appealed to higher court had much higher rate in getting favorable results than those who did not. That is to say, economically-disadvantaged people may have no choice but to either accept the relatively unfavorable result in criminal suits or give up making themselves to be heard via assembly and procession, because they have difficulties in paying the attorney fee or the appeal fee. In other word, these groups of people are denied of an effective way to arouse public awareness and to influence the politicians that make policies. The result of analysis shows that “Assembly and Parade Act” did have negative influence on some people who need to voice their opinions through assemblies or processions. More and more judges now recognize the importance of freedom of assembly and the fact that there are many inappropriate regulations in our “Assembly and Parade Act”, and they managed to help some defendants in each independent judicial practice. Nevertheless, the most fundamental solution to substantially protect the freedom of assembly is to modify our “Assembly and Parade Act” and completely remove those restrictive regulations that are the relics of “The period of Martial Law”.

參考文獻


-(2007),〈勢不可免的衝突:從結構�過程的辯證看美麗島事件之發生〉,《臺灣社會學》第13期,頁71-128,2007年6月。
朱政坤(2011),「警察命令解散處分之研究」,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文,2011年7月。
鄭昆山(1998),〈從「法治國原則」論集會遊行刑事罰之「行政從屬性」-兼論司法院大法官會議釋字第445號解釋〉,《律師雜誌》第222期,頁15-32,1998年3月。
劉華真(2010),〈台灣一九七○年代的勞動抗爭初探〉,《臺灣民主季刊》第7卷第1期,頁31-63,2010年3月。
城仲模(1990),〈四十年來之行政法〉,《法令月刊》41卷10期,頁64-81,1990年10月。

被引用紀錄


傅鈺如(2017)。國家大規模興訟與政策爭議:以全國關廠工人案與華光社區案為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201703881
高郁婷(2016)。徒步導覽的文化正當性政治〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201610095
張嘉婷(2014)。論公民不服從之刑事責任–以可罰違法性之相對輕微型為中心–〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2014.01360

延伸閱讀