全家都是「幽靈人口」？－論新增刑法第146條第2項規定之正當性

Whole Families are “Phantom Voters”? The Legitimacy of Paragraph 2, Article 146 of the Criminal Law

宋福堂(FU-TANG SUNG)

指導教授 ： 徐偉群

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201300096

摘要

選舉是民意的展現，民主政治的基石，刑法第六章妨害投票罪，旨在保護國家舉辦之公職人員選舉整體過程不受到侵擾，使投票結果與實際相符，以實現主權在民的政治理想。「選舉幽靈人口」本質上是「變相」買票、賣票之賄選行為，因涉及憲法保障人民「遷徙自由」及「參政自由」之基本權，其可罰性實務界及學界爭論不休；新增刑法第146條第2項完全繼受最高法院見解，堅持「有投票權人」之「在地性」，並以「意圖使特定候選人當選」主觀要件，限縮條文的適用範圍，且又明文加入倍受爭議的「虛偽遷徙戶籍」要件，係換湯不換藥徙增困擾的立法，適用上產生諸多難解的疑義，且造成處罰不公平的現象。因此，「選舉幽靈人口」處罰對象應該是有特定利益約定（交付或收受），而為「虛報遷徙」以實現特定人政治利益的投票行為，不是籠統的將「選舉幽靈人口」入罪。

關鍵字

在地性 ； 有投票權人 ； 虛偽遷徙 ； 選舉幽靈人口

並列摘要

Elections are the manifestation of public opinion and the keystone of democracy. Chapter Six of the Criminal Law details the criminal charges for obstructing the right to vote, which aims to protect citizens from being harassed during the process of voting in public elections and ensure that the result of the polls reflect actual public opinion. Elections are a process by which the political ideal of “sovereignty of the people” is realized. “Phantom voters” emerging during elections is in fact a phenomenon of “vote buying” and “vote selling”. However, this issue involves the “freedom of movement” and “freedom of political participation” and therefore law enforcement and academia have taken opposite positions on the legitimacy of punishing such acts. The newly added Paragraph 2, Article 146 of the Criminal Law reflects the opinion of the Supreme Court, which insists on the “localness” of “eligible voters” but limits the applicability against the subjective criteria of “intentional manipulation in favor of a certain candidate”. And by adding the element of “false household relocation” to the clause, the same dispute arises only under a different name. Such legislation makes the law even more confusing and in turn leads to unfair punishment. Therefore, punishment of “phantom voters” formed during elections should be imposed on the parties involved in the actual exchange of interests (both giving and receiving) through the act of “false relocation”, whereas the voter(s) simply intend(s) to exercise their voting rights for the political interest of a certain candidate. That is to say that the same rules should not be imposed without prejudice on all “phantom voters” discovered during elections.

並列關鍵字

false relocation ； eligible voter ； localness ； phantom voters

參考文獻

2.司法院釋字第630號。

4.司法院釋字第544號。

5.司法院釋字第374號。

20.游明得，賄選罪的誤解與正解，財團法人國家政策研究基金會，（2007.1.30）。

13.紀俊臣，單一選舉區劃分與行政區劃，頁4（2005）。