刑事訴訟限制出境之立法論──兼評新增限制出境之規範

Normative Perspectives on Restrictions of the Travelling Aboard

按遷徙自由乃人民之基本權利，聯合國公民及政治權利公約第12條第2款規定任何人均有自由離去國境之權利，我國憲法第10條亦明定之，其內涵包括自由遷徙、入出國境及旅行之權利。而限制出境、出海（下稱「限制出境」），乃國家限制或禁止人民自由離去國境之處分行為，為刑事訴訟保全被告到庭目的所採取之手段，我國實務歷來認為「限制被告出境係執行限制住居方法之一種」，然就限制本質、內涵及侵害人民基本權利之程度，二者不同，法理上自不能將之當作限制住居執行方法或附帶條件，且刑事訴訟法並未明文授權之，實務見解即違反法律保留原則。質是，本文提出限制出境規範之立法建議，包括：本質上作為羈押替代處分之限制出境，應採法律保留原則、審查程序，實質上及程序上正當法律程序之規範內涵等以提供立法基礎並符合憲法秩序。最後，兼評立法增訂限制出境專章之重要問題。

In the recognition of the freedom of movement is a basic human right, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights Article 12 and the Constitution of the Republic of China Article 10 both stipulate that any person is entitled to the liberty to leave any country including his own. Therefore, the travel restriction shall be subject to the law and require a warrant issued by the judiciary, except under exigent circumstance. However, the Taiwanese judiciary holds the opinion that the travel restriction constitute only the mean of restraining residence, which might be deemed unconstitutional practice. This article aims to illustrate the travel restriction in the criminal justice system of the United States and review the travel restriction of the current system in Taiwan. Eventually, this article proposes a new model for the travel restriction in Taiwanese criminal justice system—one that withstands constitutional review.