正當法律程序的司法控制與回應——以人身自由為中心

Due Process of Law and Dynamic Judicial Response: A Focus on the Issues of Personal Freedom

對於人身自由正當法律程序的議題，我國司法院大法官已經累積許多相關憲法解釋。本文發現，從威權統治、民主轉型，再到民主深化的發展過程中，上述這些司法院大法官解釋呈現出明顯的階段特色。在威權統治時期，相關解釋無論是在質與量上，對於正當法律程序內涵的回應均相當不足。自民主轉型之後，司法院大法官解釋不僅數量大幅增加，更逐漸具體化與精緻化正當法律程序的實質內容。本文認為，此種階段特色的呈現，可以從四個面向看作是大法官透過正當法律程序的要求，對於憲政發展進行回應，並且嘗試修正過去國家對於人身自由的過度限制。首先，司法院大法官限縮國家權力的行使主體，將人身自由拘束的決定權限集中於法院。此外，大法官也更具體化人身自由拘束的要件門檻，以免受到國家恣意侵害。更重要的是，正當法律程序的保障對象與範圍也逐漸擴張，及於更為多元的人身自由議題。最後，大法官對於人身自由拘束期間的拿捏上，更趨向遵守時間理性，以強化人身自由的保障。本文認為，此種分析對於正當法律程序的內涵，提供一種更為功能性的理解，並且突顯出我國司法違憲審查制度，在人身自由正當法律程序的議題上，其角色與功能的動態變化。

As an essential element for constitutional democracies, the principle of due process of law has been discussed both in theory and in practice. Such discussion thrives basically from Article 8 of the Constitution concerning personal freedom. However, the Constitution itself does not express the explicit wording of“due process of law”. It is the Grand Justice to give the substantive meaning to this principle through series of constitutional interpretation. This paper suggests that the development of due process of law in personal freedom can be divided into three different periods, reflecting Taiwan’s constitutional history from the authoritarian regime to democracy. In this way, the function and role of due process of law can be more contextually understood as a dynamic judicial response to the development of constitutional democracy in Taiwan. This paper further identifies four main features of constitutional interpretations to show that the principle of due process of law can serve not only as the mechanism to limit governmental power, but also a clear response to the context, especially the authoritarian era. Firstly, only courts rather than prosecutors have the final power to impose limitation to or deprivation of personal freedom. Secondly, higher threshold and legal certainty are required to prevent arbitrary infringement of personal freedom. Thirdly, the scope of due process of law is applicable to wide range of issues or cases involving non-criminals and even foreigners. Lastly, the Grand Justice has paid more attention on the time management to ensure governmental power is well regulated and to enhance the protection of personal freedom.