公共衛生法中限制商業言論之合憲性探討

The Study of the Constitutionality of the Regulation of Commercial Speech in Public Health Law

林南廷(Nan-Ting Lin)

指導教授 ： 陳慈陽

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2013年)

摘要

本文基於捍衛憲法保障言論自由的研究動機，以法釋義學之文義解釋、目的解釋、體系解釋及比較法解釋，採取文獻分析作為研究方法，探討公共衛生法中限制商業言論之合憲性問題，特別檢討現行藥事法第66條第1項藥物廣告之事前審查制規定的合憲性。
商業言論非我國憲法上之用語，我國釋憲實務多數見解認為以銷售物品、勞務、創意等俾以獲取經濟上利益的言論，即為商業言論。參酌比較法及我國學者多數見解，此一定義並無不妥。商業言論有助於自我實現而受憲法保障。廣告是一種勸說閱聽人採取行為措施的溝通方式。具有促銷之目的，傳達有關商品或服務之廣告係商業廣告，其係表意行為且屬商業言論受憲法第11條言論自由的規定所保障。
公共衛生法是行政法，其規範特性為群體、介入與預防取向。商業言論有影響消費者從事對其健康不利行為之可能性，此為商業言論健康上之風險，因此商業言論遂成為公共衛生法所管制之對象。公共衛生法管制商業言論的憲法基礎，其一係基於公益目的，此有憲法第23條及基本國策之相關規定。其二為基本權之國家保護義務。
限制商業言論之違憲審查基準，美國法上採「商業言論原則」，其內容為：內容為欺瞞他人或涉及非法活動的商業言論，無論其藉由何種方式表達，政府皆得禁止之。而該言論內容為真實而且無誤導他人之虞，亦即無誤導性以及非涉及不法活動者，政府部門欲以限制，唯有該限制商業言論之管制措施，可達成具體實質的利益，並且該限制措施為達成目的之必要手段，該管制措施方屬合憲。該原則係採取中度審查標準。
我國憲法第23條規定於解釋上得以推導出法律保留、國會保留及比例原則及基本權核心等限制基本權具憲法正當性理由之制度。針對公共衛生法中限制商業言論之合憲性問題，特別是檢討現行藥事法第66條第1項藥物廣告之事前審查制規定之合憲性時，應適用憲法第23條規定之原則，逐一檢驗系爭規定。本文認為釋字第414號解釋在未予全面適用比例原則之三項派生原則之下，即承認現行藥物廣告之事前審查制規定合憲，顯為不妥。基於美國法對於言論自由的類型化程度高，可預測程度高的優點，再加上商業言論原則是從限制商業言論之公共衛生法規的合憲性爭議之司法實務判決見解，累積發展而來，而且我國釋憲實務針對限制商業言論的案型，採取中度審查標準之立場，業已確立，故適用比例原則檢驗系爭規定之合憲性，可導入該原則作為審查標準。
本文認為現行藥事法第66條第1項事前審查制規定與憲法第23條比例原則之要求未合，其為濃厚法律家父長主義式的管制方式，對人性尊嚴過度干預，有違憲之虞。基於政治社會之整體環境變遷與管制理念之典範轉移，藥事法第66條第1項藥物廣告之事前審查制規定，應予以廢止，改採事後追懲制或修法大幅限縮事前審查要件之適用範圍。

關鍵字

言論自由 ； 商業言論 ； 商業言論原則 ； 事前審查 ； 公共衛生法 ； 藥物廣告

並列摘要

The issue concerning the constitutionality of the regulation of commercial speech in public health law is the core of this thesis. This thesis examines the prior restraint adopted by Article 66 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act with methods of constitutional interpretation on the basis of freedom of speech . There is no definitive clause of commercial speech in the Constitution. Commercial speech has been defined as an expression promoting a product , service or concept with the intent to obtain profits in the interpretations of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan（see J.Y. Interpretation Nos. 577, 623 and 634）.The definition and the determination of standard of commercial speech adopted in the interpretations of Judicial Yuan are approvable in comparative law.
Advertising is a form of communication used to persuade, or manipulate the audience to continue or take some new action. Commercial advertising is the one to point out and create a need for products or services, draw customers to the business, and to hold existing customers. Therefore commercial advertising is consistent with the definition of commercial speech. The regulation of commercial advertising in public health law is the regulation of commercial speech. The population is bombarded with behavioral messages that affect its health, for example, the medicament advertising will ignore the side effect of the drug and medical device for the sake of film-playing time or paper space. Customers will make their decision affected by the untruthful medicament advertising so the medicament advertising has been the object of the regulation in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.The constitutional codes for the regulation of commercial speech in public health law are Article 11 , Chapter 13 regarding Fundamental National Policies of the Constitution as well as the Protective Obligation of the State.
Commercial speech doctrine is the determination of standard of judicial review in the decisions regarding the regulation of commercial speech in the U.S.A. Under a four-part test of this doctrine developed by the U.S. Supreme Court, restrictions on commercial speech are permitted even if the expression is accurate and promotes a lawful product or service. Under the four-part test, truthful commercial speech may be restricted if the government asserts a substantial interest that will advanced by a regulation. The regulation must be also narrowly tailored to serve government objectives.
Commercial speech doctrine is the determination of standard of judicial review in the decisions regarding the regulation of commercial speech in the U.S.A. Under a four-part test of this doctrine developed by the U.S. Supreme Court, restrictions on commercial speech are permitted even if the expression is accurate and promotes a lawful product or service. Under the four-part test, truthful commercial speech may be restricted if the government asserts a substantial interest that will advanced by a regulation. The regulation must be also narrowly tailored to serve government objectives.
This thesis considers that the four-part test of commercial speech doctrine is the principle of proportionality of Article 23 of the Constitution compatible. Examining the constitutionality of the prior restraint adopted by Article 66 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act with the principle of proportionality of Article 23, this thesis considers the regulation of the medicament advertising unconstitutional and suggests that this censorship of the medicament advertising must be abolished or diminished.

並列關鍵字

freedom of speech ； commercial speech ； commercial speech doctrine ； prior restraint ； public health law ； medicament advertising

參考文獻

王泰翔，廣播電視之商業置入性行銷：從言論自由之角度出發，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，民國100年6月。

魏琳珊，我國菸害防制法關於「吸菸場所限制」之合憲性問題探討，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，民國98年7月。

陳聰富等著，醫療法律，台北：元照，2012年初版。

賴祥蔚，商業言論與憲法的言論自由保障，台灣政治學刊，第14卷1期，2010年6月。

周桂田，現代性與風險社會，台灣社會學刊，第21期，1998 年10 月。