澳門民法上名譽權侵害的真實抗辯

Exceptio Veritatis for Violation against Right to Honor in Macau Civil Law

本文旨在結合學說與判例，系統檢視澳門民法上的真實抗辯機制，包括其立法精神與成立要件。在立法精神上，鑑於社會對「真」這種價值的重視，澳門民法典明文特設真實抗辯，作為專用於名譽權侵害的不法性阻卻事由，容許言論在符合一定要件時被合法化，從而在名譽權與表達自由權之間劃界。在成立要件上，真實抗辯的前提有三：「言之有據」、「言出有名」與「言不及密」。其一，「言之有據」指言論在內容上須屬實或可靠。屬實，分為事實歸責屬實與價值判斷屬實，後者指判斷基礎具「真實性」與「充分性」；可靠，指有認真依據相信所言屬實，其被判例解釋為言論必須「像真」且經「查核」。其二，「言出有名」即言論在目的上旨在實現正當利益，包括公共利益與私人利益；司法見解認為，此項要件隱含了「言出有度」，即言論在手段上合乎比例原則。其三，「言不及密」則是指言論在底線上不侵害隱私。

This paper aims to examine systematically the ratio legis and elements of the exceptio veritatis in Macau Civil Law, combining doctrines and jurisprudences. In terms of the ratio legis, in view of the social emphasis on the value of ''truth'', Macau Civil Code expressly establishes the exceptio veritatis as a ground for legal justification exclusively applicable to violations against right to honor, for excluding the illegality of the statement when certain requirements are met, so as to draw a line between right to honor and right to freedom of expression. In terms of the elements, there are three requisites for exceptio veritatis, i.e., the statement must be well-founded, made for a good reason, and must not touch secret of others. First, the statement must be well-founded, which means the content of the statement must be true or reliable. The imputation of fact is true, when the event/situation described is real; the value judgment is true, when the comment is based on a sufficient factual basis, so the basis must be real and sufficient. Reliability means that there is a serious ground for believing the statement is true. For being reliable, jurisprudence requires that statement must be ''believable'' and ''checked''. Second, the statement must be made for a good reason, which means that the purpose of the statement is to achieve legitimate interests, including public interests and private interests. Jurisprudence holds that this element implies that the statement must be proportional in terms of the means, passing the test of the principle of proportionality. Third, the statement must not touch secret of others, which means that as a bottom line, the statement might not violate right to privacy.