「個案法律禁止」作為我國憲法原則？──兼評政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例之「政黨」定義

“Prohibition of an Individualized Law” as a Constitutional Principle?: Also Comment on the Definition of “Political Party” in the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations

「個案法律禁止」在憲法學中向為使人琅琅上口的概念，在德國基本法中亦可見其蹤跡。惟立法者為特定個案或對象量身打造的法規範，是否受憲法之嚴格禁止？尤其在憲法文本無明文規定的我國，不無深究之必要。隨著「政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例」於2016年公布施行，及其後續引發的諸多爭議，對「個案法律禁止」的概念進行釐清，也更形迫切。是以，本文首先簡介思想史上「法律一般性」的理念，輔以德國學說及聯邦憲法法院針對基本法「一般性誡命」的理解，以全面掌握「個案法律禁止」的來龍去脈，再將目光拉回到我國，探討「個案法律禁止」得否構成我國的憲法原則。最後，本文以簡評政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例有關「政黨」之定義，作為結論。

“The Prohibition of an Individualized Law” is a well-accepted legal term in the constitutional jurisprudence, which could also be found in the German Basic Law. However, considering it lacks an explicit clause stipulated in the R.O.C. constitution, whether the legislator is strictly forbidden to enact a law for some specific cases or individuals or not, remains in doubt. With the controversial Act “Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations” passed by the Legislative Yuan and coming into force in 2015, it is more and more urgent to clarify the aforementioned question. The first part of the essay traces the original concept of the commonality of laws. Secondly, the essay makes inquiries about the general understanding of the “Precept of Commonality” provision of German Basic Law within the German academic society and the Federal Constitutional Court. The third part will analyze if “The Prohibition of an Individualized Law” could be considered as one of the Constitutional Principles of R.O.C. Lastly, the essay will conclude by briefly commenting on the Definition of “Political Party” in the Act “Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations.”