亞亞案的若干問題初探──以最高行政法院114年度抗字第158號裁定及其前審為中心

A Preliminary Inquiry into the YaYa Case: Focusing on Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. 158 of 2025 and Its Lower Court Decision

2025年「亞亞案」牽動台灣社會對國家安全與言論自由間界線的高度關注。主管機關以亞亞於社群媒體上發表「支持武統」等言論，認定其有危害國家安全之虞，進而依《大陸地區人民在臺灣地區依親居留長期居留或定居許可辦法》第14條第1項第4款，廢止其依親居留資格，並進行強制出境。本文以該事件為中心，檢視驅逐出境措施之憲法正當性，並以最高行政法院114年度抗字第158號裁定及其前審為分析對象，探討其對授權明確性、判決理由與比例原則之詮釋。進一步比較法國法上的行政訴訟程序保障，反思我國制度對基本權保護的不足，特別是在司法保護遲緩與即時性不足之情況下，當事人難以阻卻即時執行。本文主張驅逐出境作為干預人身自由與家庭團聚之手段，應適用最嚴格之授權明確性標準，且應在法律保留原則下明確界定國家安全之要件與審查密度，避免空白授權或濫用行政裁量，實現基本權保障與國家治理的平衡。

The 2025“YaYa case”provoked intense public debate in Taiwan regarding the boundary between national security and freedom of expression. The competent authority determined that YaYa’s statements on social media—such as her support for“armed reunification”—posed a potential threat to national security. Accordingly, it revoked her family-based residency under Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the“Regulations Governing Residency, Long-Term Residency, or Settlement for Mainland Chinese in Taiwan,”and ordered her deportation. This article centers on the constitutional legitimacy of such deportation measures, analyzing both the Supreme Administrative Court’s 2025 ruling (Case No. 158, Year 114) and its lower court counterpart. It evaluates the ruling's interpretation of the principle of clarity in legal authorization, the reasoning behind the judgment, and the proportionality principle. Further, this paper compares procedural protections available under French administrative law to reflect on the deficiencies in Taiwan’s fundamental rights protections—particularly the lack of timely judicial remedies that can prevent the immediate execution of deportation orders. The article argues that deportation, as a coercive measure that interferes with personal liberty and family unity, must be subject to the strictest standard of clarity in legal authorization. Moreover, under the principle of legality, the definition and threshold of“national security”must be clearly established and judicially reviewable to avoid vague delegations or abuses of administrative