總統、政黨與國會之相互關係──以政黨影響國政之憲法基礎及界限為中心

The Interrelationships Among the President, Parties and the Parliament: Focusing on the Constitutional Basis and Limits of Party Influence on Political Policy

在當代政黨政治之憲政秩序下，政黨所扮演之角色，不再僅限於推薦候選人參與公職人員選舉之國政「發動者」而已。其更進一步透過法定及非法定之各種管道，使自己成為國政之「參與者」。在我國憲法之權力分立架構下，政黨對於國政領導之影響，在行政權及立法權兩方面尤為明顯。政黨基於憲法所保障之政黨自由，對國政領導進行影響，固有其憲法上之基礎及正當性。但政黨之身影在總統及立法院等國政領導憲法機關中無所不在，卻也同時複雜化了政黨、總統與國會間之雙面及三面憲法關係。本於黨政分離原則，政黨影響國政領導仍應有其界限。以我國憲政實務為例，總統兼任黨主席在法制上雖非當然禁止之事項，但在身分扮演及職權行使上仍應嚴格區分，不應混同。又政黨為維持黨紀，撤銷其全國不分區立法委員之黨籍，在我國現行法制上因必然會與喪失立法委員資格之法律效果相連結，故撤銷黨籍之事由應以黨籍立委之行為嚴重損及政黨參與立法權範疇國政領導之職權行使及功能為限。

Under the demand of the constitutional order to maintain the due course of political parties, the role of the parties shall not be limited as merely a “proposer”, recommending the lists of candidates in official elections. Furthermore, the political parties should take every legal and non-legal means to transform itself into a “participator”. Under the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, the influence of political parties on the leadership of national policy can be demonstrated particularly in both executive and legislative branches.
Based on the freedom of political parties, which is protected by the constitution, parties thereof enjoy the right to engage in the national policy leadership. However, the influence of political parties is everywhere in the national policy leadership agencies such as the President and the parliament, which complicates the mutual or tripartite relationships among the parties, the President and the parliament. Owing to the principle of separation of the party and the government administration, there should be a boundary concerning to the influence of parties on the national policy leadership. Taking the constitutional practice in Taiwan as an example, the President is not prohibited to be the party chairman at the same time; nevertheless, the roles and the authority of offices shall be strictly separated. Another example is that, if a non-constituency legislator is expelled from the party membership due to party discipline, he or she inevitably would also be not qualified to continue his or her role as a legislator anymore. In such case, unless the act of the said legislator is so severe as to undermine the participation of the political party in the scope of legislation in the national policy leadership, the withdrawal of the party membership should still be rigidly limited.