大法官解釋審查標準之發展（1996-2011）：比例原則的繼受與在地化

Development of Standards of Review by the Constitutional Court from 1996 to 2011: Reception and Localization of the Proportionality Principle

黃昭元(Jau-Yuan Hwang)

《臺大法學論叢》 42卷2期 (2013/06) Pp. 215-258

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2013.42.02.01

摘要

本文以1996年至2011年間，大法官解釋有關審查標準的發展，為主要的分析對象；並以比例原則的繼受及在地化發展，包括其與美國審查標準理論的磨合及整合，為本文的核心議題。關於大法官解釋審查標準之發展，本文研究發現：第六屆大法官自釋字第414號解釋（1996）起，開始繼受德國之憲法上比例原則。並於2003年第六屆大法官任期屆滿時，繼受確定完成，比例原則也成為憲法第23條之原則。但此時期解釋對於比例原則的適用仍然是說理不足，流於粗糙。2003年後新制大法官則平行繼受美國三重審查標準理論及德國審查密度理論，略經磨合，迅即將這兩個理論連結適用到比例原則，因而整合出「一個原則，三種標準」的架構，並適用於平等以外的多數權利類型案件。本文認為：所謂「類型化（層級化）比例原則」或「比例原則與審查標準的結合」，可說是這個時期大法官對於審查標準理論在地化發展的最主要貢獻。又本文在分別統計分析1996至2003年第六屆大法官及2003至2011年新制大法官所為有關比例原則之解釋後，發現：新制大法官對於比例原則的適用，比第六屆更頻繁，說理也更深入，但最後宣告合憲的比率卻大致相當。為何如此？本文研究發現：自上述三重審查標準成形以來，寬鬆審查一直是大法官的最主要選項，這是合憲解釋始終居多數的主因。但值得觀察的是：大法官似乎越來越喜歡選擇並應用中度審查標準，將來是否會取代寬鬆審查標準，則是以後繼續研究的重點所在。

關鍵字

大法官 ； 比例原則 ； 審查標準 ； 審查密度 ； 類型化 ； 逐案權衡 ； 嚴格審查 ； 寬鬆審查 ； 中度審查 ； 從嚴審查

並列摘要

This paper researches on the development of judicial standards of review by the Constitutional Court during 1996 and 2011. The focus is on the reception and localization of the principle of proportionality, through competition and integration with the U.S. theory of standards of review. This paper finds, beginning from J.Y. Interpretation No. 414 of 1996, the Constitutional Court started the formal reception of constitutional principle of proportionality from Germany. By September 2003, it had become one of the constitutional principles embedded in Article 23 of Constitution, though its casual applications often ran short of necessary reasoning. Since October 2003, the Constitutional Court further introduced the US theories of tripartite standards of review and the German theory of density. By adapting both to the principle of proportionality, the Constitutional Court gradually developed a framework of ”one principle, three standards” and apply it to the cases of most constitutional rights, except for equality. This paper argues, ”categorization of the principle of proportionality” or ”integration of the principle of proportionality and standards of review” could be regarded one of the most noticeable contributions made by the Constitutional Court during the said period. On top of the above findings, this paper asks a second question: why the ratio of constitutional declarations remained almost unchanged before and after 2003, even though the application of proportionality principle appeared to be more frequent and much better reasoned after 2003? This paper finds, under the framework of tripartite standards of review, the most benign ”lenient review” (equivalent of the rationality review in the US) has been the most employed test, followed by the intermediate scrutiny. Its frequent uses may explain the majority of decisions still declaring constitutional the reviewed laws and regulations either before or after 2003. What remains to be watched is whether the newly emerged intermediate scrutiny would become the core test in practice, given its accommodation with ad hoc balancing.

並列關鍵字

Constitutional Court ； principle of proportionality ； standards of review ； densities of review ； categorization ； ad hoc balancing ； strict scrutiny ； lenient review ； intermediate scrutiny ； heightened review

參考文獻

陳愛娥（2008）。〈基本權限制之審查基準〉，收於：《司法院大法官釋憲 六十週年學術研討會：違憲審查基準與社會國原則論文集（上冊）》， 頁1-40。台北：司法院。（Ai-Er Chen [2008]. Standards of review for restrictions of fundamental rights. In Symposium in celebration of the 60th anniversary of constitutional interpretation by the Grand Justices of Judicial Yuan: Collection of essays on standards of judicial review and social state principle [Vol. I, pp. 1-40]. Taipei: Judicial Yuan.）

Barak, A. (2006). The judge in a democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cohen-Eliya, M., & Iddo, P. (2009). The hidden foreign law debate in Heller: The proportionality approach in American Constitutional Law. San Diego Law Review, 46, 367-413.

Cohen-Eliya, M., & Iddo, P.(2010). American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(2), 263-286.

Emiliou, N. (1996). The principle of proportionality in European law: A comparative study. London: Kluwer Law International.