森林法第15條第4項傳統領域概念之適用與檢討──評最高法院109年度台上字第3148號刑事判決及其歷審判決

Analysis and Critique of the Ap-plication of the Concept of the Traditional Territory of Aborig-inal People in Article 15 of The Forestry Act

本文以我國法院對原住民族傳統領域概念之適用現況，作為觀察與討論的對象。首先，從原住民基本法第19條與森林法第15條第4項之制定，以及2019年原住民族依生活慣俗採取森林產物規則的制定中，可以觀察到我國法規範兼顧自然生態保育與原住民族文化維護的發展方向。同時，從我國法院判決的發展中，也可以觀察到法院對原住民族森林產物採集行為，採取肯定其行為合法性的發展趨勢。不過，在最高法院109年度台上字第3148號刑事判決中，可以觀察到另一條相反的發展路徑，也就是對原住民合法採集行為採取限縮解釋的發展方向。根據該判決，原住民族只能在自身所隸屬族群的傳統領域內，才享有合法採集森林產物的權利，反之在其他原住民族的傳統領域內採集時，將會構成犯罪行為。結論上，本文認為最高法院此一判決具有以下四點錯誤：一、錯誤地由財產權概念來理解傳統領域；二、錯誤地以傳統領域作為合法採集行為的判斷基準；三、違反罪刑法定原則之嫌；四、忽略傳統領域概念與歷史記憶間的關係。

This article focuses on the circumstance of the application of the concept of the traditional territory of aboriginal people in Taiwanese criminal trials. First, the amendments to Article 19 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law and Article 15 of the Forestry Law, and the legislation of Forest Products Collection Rule in 2019 show the development that Taiwan law emphasizes environmental protection and protection of indigenous peoples’ culture. At the same time, in view of the development of criminal trials in Taiwan, there is a tendency for judges to confirm the legality of the act of taking forest products. However, in the Supreme Court’s 2019 case, there are developments that oppose the aforementioned developments. In other words, the development trend is to interpret the act of legal collection of forest products by Taiwan indigenous peoples in a limited way. According to this case, Taiwan indigenous peoples will have the right to legally collect forest products within the traditional territories of their own tribes or villages. On the contrary, Taiwan indigenous peoples are criminal when they collect in the traditional territories of other tribes. In the conclusion, there are four mistakes in this case. First, understand the concept of traditional territory from the perspective of property rights. Second, the legality of the act of taking forest products is judged based on the range of traditional territory. Third, there is a risk of violating “Nulla poena sine lege”. Finally, ignore the connection between the concept of traditional territory and historical memory.