國會法的形成與其界限──以憲法法庭113年憲判字第9號判決所涉及之國會改革法案為例

The Formation of Parliamentary Law and Its Limits: Taking the Constitutional Court’s Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-9 (2024) Regarding the Parliamentary Reform Bill as an Example

立法院在朝野政黨爆發衝突下，於113年5月28日三讀通過立法院職權行使法修正草案。於總統公布後，總統、行政院、監察院及四分之一以上立法委員（即民進黨黨團成員）分別以修正條文部分或全部違憲之理由，向憲法法庭聲請法規範審查，並聲請暫時處分。針對本案爭議，憲法法庭於同年10月25日作成113年憲判字第9號判決。於該判決中，憲法法庭宣告違憲或部分違憲的條文共計18條。此等被宣告違憲之條文，乃憲法法庭認為立法者於規範立法院職權行使之事項時，已逾越憲法所容許之範圍。惟於該判決之字裡行間，不難發現憲法法庭對於國會法之規範形式、（立法者就）國會法之形成自由，以及對於立法院得以有效行使憲法職權之重要公益性多所誤解，而實有予以辨明之必要。
本文先釐清國會法之概念，是否如憲法法庭所認為，國會法只涉及立法院內部之議事事項。再則探討依我國憲法規定，國會法之規範形式為何，是否如憲法法庭所言，立法院擁有議事自律權。於前者釐清後，進而探討立法者對於國會法之形成自由權，與此形成自由權的憲法依據與由來。最後探討立法者以法律或立法院以議事規則規範國會法時，在憲法上之界限與限制。於理論探討之餘，亦針對憲法法庭113年憲判字第9號判決提出評析。

Amidst the conflict between the ruling and opposition parties, the Legislative Yuan passed the draft amendment to the Legislative Yuan’s Exercise of Powers Act in the third reading on May 28, 2024. After the President’s announcement, the President, the Executive Yuan, the Control Yuan, and more than one-quarter of the legislators (i.e., members of the Democratic Progressive Party caucus) each petitioned the Constitutional Court for a legal review and requested interim disposition on the grounds that the revised provisions were partially or completely unconstitutional. In response to the dispute in this case, the Constitutional Court issued the Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-9 (2024) on October 25 of the same year. In the Judgment the Constitutional Court declared a total of 18 articles unconstitutional or partially unconstitutional. These provisions were declared unconstitutional because the Constitutional Court believed that the legislator had exceeded the scope permitted by the Constitution when regulating the exercise of the powers of the Legislative Yuan. However, between the lines of the judgment, it is not difficult to find that the Constitutional Court has many misunderstandings about the regulatory form of parliamentary laws, the freedom of legislators to form parliamentary laws, and the important public interest of the Legislative Yuan to effectively exercise its constitutional powers, which really needs to e clarified.
This article first clarifies the concept of parliamentary law, examining whether, as the Constitutional Court argues, parliamentary law pertains solely to matters within the Legislative Yuan. It then examines the regulatory form of parliamentary law under the Republic of China’s Constitution and whether, as the Constitutional Court argues, the Legislative Yuan possesses the power of deliberative autonomy. Following this clarification, it then explores the legislature’s freedom to formulate parliamentary law and the constitutional basis and origins of this freedom. Finally, it examines the constitutional boundaries and limitations of legislators regulating parliamentary law through laws or the Legislative Yuan through procedural rules. In addition to this theoretical discussion, it also offers a critique of the Constitutional Court’s Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-9 (2024).