預防接種受害救濟補償審議之正當法律程序──兼評臺北高等行政法院97年訴字第3185號判決

The Due Process of Compensation for Prophylactic Vaccination Injury

本文所探討者，乃針對預防接種受害救濟的審議過程，應否滿足憲法「正當法律程序」原則之問題。臺北高等行政法院97年訴字第3185號判決認為預防接種受害救濟事項因具有高度專業性，為使審議委員不受外在評論意見之影響，否定行政程序當事人之卷宗閱覽權，無異於否定預防接種受害救濟審議過程中憲法上正當法律程序之建構。
本文認為，系爭判決見解應不足採。而認應於預防接種受害救濟的審議過程，建構「正當法律程序」，賦予利害關係人「程序基本權」，且其最基本要求至少應有「資訊公開」與「陳述意見」，也因此本文透過解釋論，一方面合憲性解釋限縮行政程序法第46條第2項第1款之適用範圍，另一方面也透過正當法律程序之規範目的，合理解釋行政程序法第102條之適用範圍，使得利害關係人得以請求審議過程決策程序之相關資訊，以實質參與審議過程之決策程序。

This article focuses on the administrative procedure of compensation for prophylactic vaccination injury from the horizon of “Due process” in constitution. Judgment by Taipei High Administrative Court is of the opinion that it negated the construction of due administrative procedure of compensation for prophylactic vaccination injury to exempt committee member from the external influence because decision about compensation for prophylactic vaccination injury is greatly professional.
Hence, this article argues the opinion from the judgment is without any reason. I find that the opinion from the judgment is originated by the “Binary Regime of Value/Fact”. And by the discourse of Bruno Latour, this article tries to eliminate this regime, from principles of law dogmatics conforms to Constitution, APA No. 46 & 102 should be interpreted reasonably so that persons involved or implicated by compensation for prophylactic vaccination participate in the administrative procedure substantially.