審查行政罰法第26條第2項之合憲性──評釋字第751號解釋

Constitutionality Review of Article26, Paragraph 2 of theAdministrative Penalty Act:Commenting the J.Y. InterpretationNo.751

審查行政罰法第26條第2項之合憲性，應將同條第3項及第4項一併納入審查標的，因彼此之間具有重要關聯性。惟就人民同一違法行為，國家究竟科處何種類型、多少次數之處罰，原則上係屬立法形成自由，釋憲者就此應給予尊重，職是，釋字第751號解釋採取寬鬆審查標準以進行違憲審查。至於，應採取比例原則或一行為不二罰原則作為該號解釋審查原則，並無標準答案，因為比例原則操作下的過度處罰禁止與一行為不二罰原則操作下的重複處罰禁止，兩者幾近相同，關鍵是操作過程中論理的周延性，以該號解釋比例原則操作為例，其操作略為空泛且論理亦顯不足，似有未洽；若採取一行為不二罰原則作為該號解釋審查原則，則應定性行政罰法第26條第2項所涉緩起訴處分及其應履行負擔為「處罰」，惟該處罰係屬行政罰或刑罰，宜交由立法者決定之，故同一違法行為被處以緩起訴處分及其應履行負擔（處罰），再被科處行政罰時，因同條第3項及第4項得扣抵之規定，使得同條第2項本身不致構成重複處罰，又因該應履行負擔與行政罰間之處罰目的、性質或種類有所不同，故不違反一行為不二罰原則。

When reviewing the constitutionality of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of theAdministrative Penalty Act, it is necessary to include Paragraph 3 and 4 into the reviewdue to their substantial relation. However, for an illegal act, legislators are entitled to thescope of legislative discretion and can freely decide the type and frequency of penalty,which should be respected by the constitutional interpreters. Thus, the J.Y. InterpretationNo.751 adopted a low standard of review. Yet, it remains unsettled whether to apply theprinciple of proportionality or the principle of double jeopardy since these two principlesare similar to the extent of preventing excessive or repeated penalty. The core matter isthe comprehensiveness of reasoning, which is inadequate in the foregoing J.Y.Interpretation. If we choose to apply the principle of double jeopardy, the deferredprosecution and affiliated burdens under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be defined as“penalty” and whether the penalty is criminal or administrative is within legislators’discretion. Therefore, when applying an administrative penalty after applying a deferredprosecution and affiliated burdens for an illegal act, due to Paragraph 3 and 4, Paragraph2 per se will not constitute double punishment. In addition, because the affiliated burdensand the administrative penalty have different purposes, essences or types, the principle ofdouble jeopardy is not violated as well.