論中央選舉委員會對公民投票提案用字遣詞之審查權限──評臺北高等行政法院109年度訴字第1486號判決

A Study on Central Election Commission’s Ex Ante Censorship on the Bill of Referendum: A Review of Taipei High Administrative Court Decision (2020) Su Tze No. 1486

依照我國憲法第17條對創制與複決權的定位，直接民主於我國具有不弱於代議民主的民主正當性，以及制度選擇之特殊性，應給予其高度保障。因此，公民投票事前審查制度之合憲性，應採較嚴格之審查，並由權力分立與基本權保障之觀點分別檢視。首先，以權力分立之角度，代議民主之事前審查制度亦不能使直接民主受制於代議民主的不當干預；其次，從參政權保障之觀點，事前審查制度對直接民主之限制，乃係為了保障投票權人之權益而設，固有其正當性，但此限制不得違背立法目的，亦不能違反比例原則，更不能使人民創制與複決權被實質剝奪；再者，由平等原則檢視，事前審查制度不能使行政機關對政府提案或人民提案有不合理之差別待遇。以臺北高等行政法院109年度訴字第1486號行政判決為例，法院的見解與適用之法律不但違反權力分立原則，亦有悖於比例原則與平等原則，進而侵害人民之創制與複決權，似有檢討改進之必要。

According to Article 17 of the ROC Constitution, direct democracy in Taiwan should receive a high degree of protection because its democratic legitimacy is no weaker than representative democracy, and the particular consideration to choose this system. Therefore, the constitutionality of the review of the bill of referendum should be subject to a stricter scrutiny and should be reviewed by the perspectives of separation of powers and the protection of fundamental rights. First, based on the doctrine of separation of powers, the ex ante censorship designed and operated by representative democracy should not unduly interfere direct democracy performance. Second, from the perspective of the protection of suffrage, the restriction on direct democracy imposed by the ex ante censorship should not violate the purpose of its legislation as well as the doctrine of proportionality. Moreover, based on the principle of equity, the ex ante censorship should not grant the administrative agency with the power to discriminate against the proposals from either the government departments or the people. However, in the case of Taipei High Administrative Court Decision (2020) Su Tze No. 1486, the court’s opinion and the laws it applied violated not only the doctrine of separation of powers, but also the principle of equity, the doctrine of proportionality, and people’s right of initiative and referendum. By reviewing this judicial decision, the article proposes several suggestions to improve and replace the approaches taken by the court.