被淘空的法律保留與變質的資訊隱私憲法保障──評最高行政法院一○六年度判字第五四號判決與相關個資法條文

The Principle of Legal Reservation Undermined and the Constitutional Protection of Informational Privacy Attenuated-On the Supreme Administrative Court Decision 106/54 and Personal Information Protection Act

個人資料保護法包含了諸多關於國家強制蒐集、處理或利用個資的規範，也因此必然隱含法律保留原則、比例原則等傳統法治國原則在國家資訊作為上應如何適用的問題。最高行政法院於一○六年度判字第五四號判決中，針對健保署為學術研究，而於原始目的外大規模強制利用人民健保個資建置資料庫的行為，認定現行個資法相關條文允許公務機關得僅以「組織法」做為強制蒐集、處理或利用個資之依據，也允許公務機關可以僅為了追求「資料更高使用效率」之目的，即大規模地將「未完全去識別化」個資，強制用於學術研究。本文則指出：在解釋論上，最高行政法院針對去識別化標準，犯了推論邏輯的謬誤；在立法論上，即使為了滿足公務機關資訊作為的彈性需要，也並非只能在法律保留原則上棄守，而全然犧牲個人權利保護；就資訊自主與資訊隱私權的憲法保障而言，則應進一步發展出類似「職業自由的三階段理論」的多階段比例原則，做為衡量資訊隱私限制的準據，並針對直接且深刻影響「人性尊嚴與尊重人格自由發展」的資訊隱私權限制，適用「最嚴格之審查標準」。

Mandatory collection, processing, or use of personal data by state agencies incurs questions of how principles of legal reservation and proportionality are to be applied in state data practices. In the case involving National Health Insurance Administration’s mandatory use of personal health insurance data for creating a research database, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that a state agency can rely only on its organic act as the legal basis. Also, the court found that the efficiency of data use in research can be the legitimate government interest for large-scale mandatory use of incompletely de-identified sensitive data. I will instead argue in this comment that the court erred in its standard of de-identification, and that flexibility for public authorities to collect and process personal data does not necessitate the compromise of the principle of legal reservation at the expenses of individual rights. It is also necessary to develop a hierarchical proportionality principle, with which the mandatory legislations that encroach upon informational privacy with negative effects on human dignity or flexible development of personality shall be subject to the strict scrutiny.