論正當行政程序在我國釋憲之發展 －以都市計畫相關大法官解釋為例－

The Development of Administrative Due Process in Constitutional Interpretation in Taiwan：A Study of Grand Justices’ Interpretations on Urban Planning- Related Cases

郭宏榮(Hung-Jung Kuo)

指導教授 ： 陳顯武

共同指導教授 ： 鍾國允(Kuo-Yun Chung)

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201800482

摘要

我國以司法院大法官解釋為主的釋憲實務，已經將「正當法律程序」的概念作為與一般憲法原則相當之重要基本原則，同時也是具體法規違憲審查的審查標準之一。然而，首見於釋字第663號解釋理由書中，並歷經第709號、第731號及第739號等大法官解釋所援用的「正當行政程序」，其憲法基礎、具體內涵以及法制定位為何等問題，尚待進一步探討，此即本文撰寫之動機。
本文先回顧正當法律程序概念之緣起與內涵。正當法律程序源自英國大憲章，美國繼受之後具體規定於彼邦聯邦憲法第 5 及第 14 修正條文，一般區分為「程序正當」與「實質正當」二面向。我國憲法條文則無「正當法律程序」此一文字用語。惟從大法官歷來解釋運用正當法律程序觀念之釋憲案例發展軌跡觀之，正當法律程序毋寧已發展成與憲法上比例原則、法律明確性原則同一位階之重要原則。並自憲法第8條對人身自由之保障肇始，陸續運用於各種基本權利領域、各種法律規範內涵之審查標準。
大法官解釋文提及「正當行政程序」始自釋字第663號解釋，惟其具體內涵及可操作標準則尚待釐清。學說認為正當行政程序包括告知義務、聽取意見義務、公正裁決義務、聽證權及說明理由義務等不一而足。自本文所分析釋字第709、731及739號等三則大法官解釋內涵觀察，正當行政程序之內容須視個案情狀及所涉及之基本權利種類、內涵等，綜合考量案件涉及之事物領域、侵害基本權之強度與範圍、所欲追求之公共利益、有無替代程序及各項可能程序之成本等因素後認定之。此外，亦可得知正當行政程序與正當法律程序概念相同，得以之作為大法官違憲審查標準。

關鍵字

正當法律程序 ； 正當行政程序 ； 程序正當 ； 實質正當 ； 司法院釋字第709號解釋 ； 司法院釋字第731號解釋 ； 司法院釋字第739號解釋 ； 財產權保障 ； 違憲審查 ； 審查基準

並列摘要

The interpretations of the Constitution delivered by the Justices of the Constitutional Court have been the prime sources for constitutional interpretations under Taiwan’s current judicial practices. The concept of so-called “due process of law” has been treated as an essential fundamental principle and equally important as general constitutional principles; moreover, applied to be one of the standards of judicial review for substantive laws. However, that the “due process of law” referred to firstly in the statement of the J.Y. Interpretation No. 663 and continuously in No.709, No. 731 and No. 739 shall be probed into in terms of its constitutional basis, specific contents and legal status and so on. It is also the purpose of this report to discuss the abovementioned issues even further.
This report will start with the introduction on the origin and connotation of the concept of “due process of law”. Actually, the term of “due process of law” was derived from the English Great Charter 1215 and then adopted by The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Generally speaking, it covers two aspects; “procedural due process of law” as well as “substantive due process of law”. Although it was absented in our Constitution, without the doubt, “due process of law” has been developed to be an important principle as the doctrine of proportionality or clarity and definiteness of law in the Constitution if we traced back the development of constitutional interpretation cases made by the Justices of the Constitutional Court based on the concept of “due process of law”. Furthermore, since the commence application on the protection of personal freedom, it was successively applied to be the standard of judicial review for all kinds of fundamental rights, laws and regulations.
The term “due process of law” was initially mentioned in the J.Y. Interpretation No. 663 by the Justices of the Constitutional Court, yet remained to be clarified regarding its connotation and applicable standard. It is the theory that the “due process of law” includes the obligation to inform, the obligation of listening to opinions, the obligation of fair ruling, the hearing rights and the obligation to give reasons and so forth. If we look at the connotations of the J.Y. Interpretation No. 709, No. 731 and No. 739 according to the analysis of this report, the contents of the “due process of law” shall be determined by the circumstances of individual cases and categories/connotations of involved fundamental rights. In addition, it shall be considered as a whole towards those aspects such as sectors of subject matters, strength and scope of invaded fundamental rights, pursuit of public interests, substitute procedures and costs on those probable procedures. Finally, it is learned that the concepts of both of the “procedural due process of law” or “substantive due process of law” shall be identical and can be applicable as the standard of judicial review.

並列關鍵字

due process of law ； administrative due process ； procedural due process of law ； substantive due process of law ； J.Y. Interpretation No. 709 ； J.Y. Interpretation No. 731 ； J.Y. Interpretation No. 739 ； property rights protection ； judicial review ； the standards of judicial review

參考文獻

陳明燦(2016)。〈從司法院釋字第739號解釋淺論我國自辦市地重劃相關問題〉，《現代地政》，第360期，頁89-91。

李仁淼（2013）。〈都市更新與正當法律程序──大法官釋字第709號解釋評析〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，第235期，頁45-53。

范文清（2016）。〈土地徵收與比例原則─評釋字第732號解釋〉，《月旦裁判時報》。

王珍玲（2012）。〈論都市更新地區範圍或更新單元之劃定等相關問題—兼評臺北高等行政法院一○○年度訴字第八八三號判決〉，《政大法學評論》，第130期，頁1-50。

林明鏘（2016）。〈都市更新之正當法律程序─兼論司法院大法官釋字第709號解釋〉，《法令月刊》，第67卷第1期，頁1-27。