公共利益作為集會遊行權利限制基礎之可行性

Public Interest and The Right of Public Assembly and Procession

吳思遠(Wu, Szu-Yuan)

指導教授 ： 周愫嫻

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/犯罪學研究所/碩士(2012年)

摘要

本研究以集會遊行中執法者、集會遊行參與者、活動地區在地民眾三個不同族群方向探究集會遊行中公共利益的認知與評價，先以文獻探討推論目前法規傾向保障被抗議者利益，集會遊行法是既得利益者操縱立法，藉由立法將執法裁量刻意交付予執法者，進一步控制執法者執法對象的法規。再透過質性訪談法驗證釐清三方對公共利益次序認知上的差異，並進行比較分析。研究發現三方利益次序並不一致，執法者認為三方安全利益最重要，在事前許可的前提下，集會訴求的利益有條件優先於在地民眾生活受影響的利益；參與者則認為其集會利益優越於其他公共利益，僅在涉及三方共同安全利益時需要受限；在地民眾則認為安全利益最重要，也認為許可制可以保障安全利益，另外在地民眾生活利益優先於集會利益。但實務運作上，受訪執法者則自陳執法模式會因規模大小、地區、群眾訴求、群眾屬性而產生差別執法；執法者主觀上存在消極執法犬儒心態，客觀上則囿於政治力介入等問題而以事後執法、歸責他人、不斷容忍勸導、象徵性執法等方式迴避執法困擾，藉以維持暫時的穩定及動態平衡。結論呈現三方利益衝突與妥協的現況以及執法者認知與實際執法間利益次序之落差，建議未來修法應揚棄過去以被抗議者利益為保障主體的觀點，以朝向在地民眾權益為主進行調整，並透過保障執法者依法行政利益，平衡在地民眾與參與者兩方利益衝突，以謀求公共利益的最大公約數。

關鍵字

集會遊行 ； 群眾運動 ； 公共利益 ； 衝突理論 ； 社會疏離

並列摘要

The public interest is often used as a legal element to limit right of assembly and procession in the Assembly And Demonstration Law of ROC, regardless of its ambiguous definition. The present study chose Zhongzheng District in Taipei City which is known as a famous assembly and demostration area to be the research site and used both interview and focus group methods to clarify the meaning of the public interest among law enforcement agencies , assembly and procession participants, and community residents. The interviewees in the present study included two police officers, two inspectors in the Sanitation Inspection Division of the department of Environmental Protection of Taipei City Council.Assembly, the leaders and the members of four different social or political movements (namely, Red-Shirted Movement, Labor Movement, White Rose Movement, and Wild Strawberry Movement.), three neighborhood magistrates, one resident and two security directors of the local hospital and school located in the assembly area.
Results indicate that although the security interest is the highest priority for all three groups concerned, the local people care about their own undisturbed local interest more than the interests of assembly and procession participants, and they also believe law enforcement agencies will use Assembly And Demonstration Law to protect them. Assembly and procession participants felt that their rights of assembly and processions are more important than any other interests. Because of not being in agreement with the Assembly And Demonstration Law , they don’t trust that the agencies will protect them. Law enforcement agencies consider that under the premise of the application, they agree the interests of assembly and procession are more important than the local interests.
However, because of political influence and complaints coming from the local people and participants, the agencies consider that practical law enforcement operations and how they approach it, depends upon the size and area, together with purposes,and nature of the assembly and procession. Agencies become cynical of the notion of ‘interests’. Moreover ,in order to maintain temporary stability and dynamic balance ,the agencies have used five tactics to avoid full law enforcement, including delay、shirking responsibility、toleration、symbolic punishment or not fully enforcing the law.
The conclusion notes a three-way conflict of interests, as well as differences in attitude and practical enforcement by the agencies. The author suggests that law reform in the future should consider prioritising interests of local people. In addition , the interests of law enforcement agencies should be aimed at protecting the balance of interests between the local people and the participants.

並列關鍵字

assembly and procession ； crowd movement ； public interest ； conflict theory ； social alienation

參考文獻

許志雄，1998，〈集會遊行法規制立法的違憲審查基準（下）-司法院釋字第四四五號解釋評析〉，《月旦法學教室》37：108 -115。

何明修，2005，《社會運動概論》。臺北：三民。

許春金，2007，《犯罪學》。臺北：三民。

黃清德，1992，〈我國動員戡亂時期集會遊行法中「禁止」與「解散」條款之評釋〉，《警政學報》21：15-40

林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花，2005，〈質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析〉，《身心障礙研究》3（2）：122 -135。