羈押事由之憲法界限

The Constitutional Boundaries of the Reasons for Detention

自從釋字第392號解釋以來，大法官逐步地排除我國羈押制度違憲侵害基本權利的缺陷，對於促成人權保障功不可沒。在此方向上，除了改善羈押審查程序、限制羈押期間和提升在押被告之權利地位等改革方案之外，有必要進一步根本地檢討現行法規定之羈押事由是否逾越憲法界限。依據本文的研究結論，在現行法的框架下，不論是為了達成保全程序或預防犯罪之目的，所有羈押事由對人身自由之干預均違反憲法第23條之比例原則；除此之外，串證羈押因為僅適用於被告而違反憲法第7條之平等原則，重罪羈押和保全刑罰執行之未決羈押違反憲法未明文之無罪推定原則。據此，羈押制度固然仍是維持刑事司法有效運作的必要條件，但是立法者應通盤檢討羈押事由之具體規定，否則可能難逃未來被大法官宣告違憲的命運。

Since the J.Y. Interpretation No.392, the Justice of the Constitutional Court has excluded many legal defects of ROC’s detention system. With the growing awareness of human rights protection, in addition to the procedure reforms such as refining the judicial review process of detention, imposing limits on the detention period and improving the defendant’s situation under detention, it is essential to examine whether the reasons for detention according to the current law exceed the constitutional boundaries. This article suggests that under the constraints of current law, whether it is for evidence preservation or crime prevention, all the reasons for detention violate the principle of proportionality. The detention for evidence and testimony forging violates the principle of equality, meanwhile the detention for felony and the suspensive detention for execution of punishment violate the principle of presumed innocence. Therefore, despite the fact that detention is indispensable to the operation of criminal justice system, this article suggests that the legislator should conduct an overall review on the reasons for detention, otherwise they may be declared unconstitutional in the future.