論道路交通管理處罰條例吊銷單純拒絕酒測駕駛人各級車類駕照之合憲性－－試析司法院大法官釋字第699號解釋

A Constitutional Re-examination of the Revocation to all types of Driver's Licenses for simply refusing Alcohol Concentration Test in Road Traffic Management and Punishment Code-Comments and Analysis of the J.Y. Interpretation No. 699

我國道路交通事故主要肇事原因之一為酒後駕駛行為，立法者分別透過刑法及道路交通管理處罰條例（下簡稱道交條例）之規定予以規範，並為防堵酒駕管制可能之漏洞，不斷加重對於拒絕酒測之處罰。本文將重心置於道交條例吊銷未肇事而拒絕酒測駕駛人（即單純拒絕酒測駕駛人）所持有各級車類駕照規定之合憲性討論。就該規定，司法院大法官釋字第699號解釋宣告其為合憲，本文首先探求該號解釋之思維模式，續就「吊銷各級車類駕照」之加重處罰，確認其所涉及憲法保障之行動自由、工作權、生存權及平等權之侵害，並透過實際酒駕與擬制酒駕的處罰比較，提出個人之觀察與反思。本文從而認為，道路交通管理處罰條例吊銷單純拒絕酒測駕駛人各級車類駕照之作法，尚難謂合乎憲法比例原則。

One of the main causes for traffic accidents in our country is drunk-driving. Legislators build the legal framework of traffic order by both Criminal Code and Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations. Also, to prevent the possible loopholes of drunk-driving regulations, legislators would continually cumulate penalty for those refuse to accept alcohol concentration test. This article aims to clarify the constitutionality of the revocation of all types of driver's licenses for simply refusing alcohol concentration test in accordance with Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations. First, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 699 will be reviewed. Then, various types of fundamental rights that could be violated would be discussed, including the freedom of movement, the right to life and work and the right to equality. By comparing with the Behavior of drunk-driving and refusing alcohol concentration test, the personal observation and reflection about this Theme would also be presented. After examining, the regulations in Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations cannot match the principle of proportionality of Article 23 in the Constitution, therefore, there's a serious concern for disproportionately limitation for relevant fundamental rights, which should not be neglected.