三一九槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會條例合憲爭議之研究

The Study on the Constitutional Issues of the Act of the Special Commission on the Investigation of the Truth in Respect of the 319 Shooting Incident

朱坤茂(Kung-mao Chu)

指導教授 ： 黃錦堂

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2007年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2007.03055

摘要

佔立法院多數席位的國民黨與親民黨認為三一九槍擊事件嚴重影響總統選情，使代表兩黨競選的連戰與宋楚瑜先生，以29,518票之小幅差距落選，乃主導制定三一九槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會條例（以下簡稱真調會條例）設置真相調查特別委員會（以下簡稱真調會），調查三一九槍擊事件之真相，但真調會條例規定真調會專屬管轄三一九槍擊事件之刑事案件，真調會行使職權有檢察官或軍事檢察官依據法律所得行使之權限，不受刑事訴訟法及其他法律之限制；受調查之機關或個人不得拒絕，對拒絕者，並得連續處以罰鍰；必要時，並得限制相關人員出境，且真調會調查結果與法院確定判決之事實歧異者，並得作為再審之理由。以上種種規定，涉及釋憲機關是否要受理與政治問題有關的釋憲案？又真調會是五院以外的機關，或是隸屬於五院中的那一院？真調會行使職權是否入侵其他憲法機關的核心領域？事涉權力分立與制衡；再其限制人民基本權利是否違反法律保留原則、法律明確性原則及比例原則？因此，民進黨與台聯黨立法委員認為真調會條例違反權力分立與制衡及憲法保障人民基本權利之規定而聲請釋憲。
本文主要以文獻分析法分析釋憲聲請書、憲法法庭辯論意旨書、鑑定人之鑑定意見、相關機關之意見、釋字第五八五號解釋之見解、國內學者之見解及評論，並參考國外立法例，以憲法釋義學與比較憲法學研究，希望瞭解司法解釋對真調會條例爭議應否審查，真調會條例使真調會成為政府機關的合憲性爭議，和真調會行使職權侵害人民基本權利的合憲性爭議。
本文第一章緒論，第二章真調會條例爭議是否為政治問題而不予審查，第三章權力分立問題，第四章人權保障問題，第五章結論。每章都先敘述與該章有關的真調會條例的案情特色，第二章至第四章，則於說明案情特色之後，依序說明真調會條例與各章相關的議題或條文，闡述美國、德國與我國的相關見解，再引述釋字第五八五號解釋之見解，及國內學者對該解釋之評論，最後作成本文之見解。第五章結論，係對本釋憲案作成整體省思，並敘述第二屆真調會條例最新的發展，及寫出對未來的展望。

關鍵字

政治問題理論 ； 政治問題不審查原則 ； 審查標準 ； 審查密度 ； 權力分立與制衡 ； 形式論 ； 功能論 ； 功能法的觀點 ； 核心領域 ； 國會調查權 ； 法律保留 ； 法律明確性原則 ； 比例原則

並列摘要

The Kuomintang and the People First Party that both held the major seating of the Legislative Yuan thought that the 319 shooting incident seriously influenced the election of president, making Lien Chan and James Soong lose the election on behalf of them. So, they led to make the Act of the Special Commission on the Investigation of the Truth in Respect of the 319 Shooting Incident (called “the Act” for short thereinafter) to set up the Special Commission on the Investigation of the Truth in Respect of the 319 Shooting incident (called “the Commission” for short thereinafter) and to investigate the truth of the 319 shooting incident.
The Act provides that the Commission holds the jurisdiction of the 319 shooting incident exclusively, and that it can exercise the power of the prosecutor without the limitation of the code of criminal procedure and etc., impose a fine on the organizations or individuals that refuse to receive its investigation, limit the relevant personnel not able to leave the country when necessary and reopen the procedure of justice when the truth the final judgment establishes is different from what it investigates. These provisions concern whether the exertion of the power of the Commission erodes the core of other constitutional institution, which constitutional institution it belongs to, and whether the Judicial Yuan can receive the constitutional case with political issues. Moreover, the provisions that restrict the fundamental rights of people involve with whether they contravene the constitutional principles of legal reservation, clarity and proportionality. Therefore, the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union thought the Act contravened the constitutional provisions about the separation of powers, the function of balancing and the protection of fundamental rights, and petitioned for the constitutional interpretation.
This essay analyses the reason of the petition for the constitutional interpretation, the intents of the arguments, the appraisal reports of the appraisers, the opinions of the relevant organizations, the Interpretation No. 585 of the Council of Grand Justices, the comments of domestic scholars and foreign legislation to review the following constitutional issues: whether the judicial institution should examine the issue of the Act, whether it is constitutional for the Act to make the Commission a constitutional institution, and whether the exercise of powers of the Commission erodes the fundamental rights of people.
The framework of this essay is: the first chapter is the foreword, the second chapter is whether the relevant issues of the Act is political and cannot be examined, the third chapter is the issues of separation of powers, the forth chapter is the issues of protection of human rights, and the fifth chapter is the conclusion. In the second to the forth chapters, every chapter will first describe the relevant details of the case and the relevant issues or provisions of the Act, subsequently explain the relevant opinions in America, German and our country, compare with the Interpretation No. 585 of the Council of Grand Justices and the comments of domestic scholars, and finally make the conclusion. The fifth chapter reflects the whole Interpretation No. 585, describes the newest development of the second edition of the Act, and brings the anticipation of the future.

並列關鍵字

the standards of judicial review ； statutory control degree ； separation of power ； balancing ； formalism ； functionalism ； investigation right ； the principle of legal reservation ； the principle of clarity ； the principle of proportionality

參考文獻

黃昭元，2004。「憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析」，台大法學論叢，第33卷第3期， 38-39,53,59-62,67-69,70-72,78。

葉俊榮，2003。「從『轉型法院』到『常態法院』：論大法官釋字第二六一號與第四九九號解釋的解釋風格與轉型脈絡」，收錄於氏著「民主轉型與憲法變遷」，元照出版，209-252。

陳愛娥，2002。「如何明確適用『法律明確性原則』－評司法院大法官釋字第五四五號解釋」，月旦法學雜誌，第88期，252-253。

陳新民，2005。憲法學釋論，修訂5版，181-182。

法務部對於「三一九槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會條例」釋憲案之書面意見。