當提審與其他救濟程序競合──評提審法第1條第1項但書規定

Habeas Corpus or Other Judicial Remedies

2014年7月施行之提審新法中，增加重要但被忽略之第1條第1項但書規定，用以處理提審與其他救濟程序競合時之問題。依據立法說明，係希冀藉由此一準據規定，以促進各類人身自由正當法律程序之建構；至於為何以即時法院審查作為競合時之判準，係因立法基礎將提審定性為救急。然可惜的是，以拘禁作為救濟對象之提審，由於拘禁之態樣眾多且複雜，很難想像針對不同態樣拘禁所為之救濟，皆屬所謂救急，實際上提審相當之功能，是在於救窮。而由於如此對於提審定性之不完整，失之片面，故以提審定性為救急屬性之前提，進而衍生出之即時法院審查準據，便不免有所不足，恐難全面地用以作為促進正當程序建構之準據。

When habeas corpus and other judicial remedies are both available for dealing with a particular unlawful detention, it is always an essential but difficult question that which procedure should be invoked first. The current Habeas Corpus Act in Taiwan uses “immediate judicial review” as the criterion to tackle this issue. Under this criterion, only if a law entitles people with a chance to have access to an immediate judicial review on an unlawful detention , habeas corpus should be yielded to this proceeding. This paper would like to examine this criterion from two perspectives. Firstly, this paper would argue that based on a mischaracterization of habeas corpus only as a means to resolve emergent matters, thus, this criterion cannot be applied to some categories of detention, such as longterm detention. Secondly, as this criterion has not reflected the whole function of habeas corpus, therefore, it would be also difficult for this criterion to fulfill its goal of facilitating the construction of due process protection of personal liberty in a comprehensive way.