論總統的特赦權行使對釋字第803號解釋產生之後續影響

The Effects Caused by the Presidential Amnesty Based on Constitutional Interpretation No. 803

本文主要的問題意識為，在大法官針對台東布農族獵人王光祿案 做出釋字第803 號解釋後，蔡英文總統則以特赦權宣告免除執行王光祿之「刑罰」，但卻並未免除其「罪」。且於該號解釋中，大法官並 非認為該行為全然合憲（或違憲），而是認為相關法令「多數」合憲。 倘若循此邏輯做思考，應能了解王光祿之行為確實違反了現今的法律 規範，然若如此，蔡英文總統又為何以特赦權，針對個案予以免除刑 罰之執行？此一舉措是否會讓特赦權成為總統回應社會輿論的政治手 段？在研究方法使用上，以文義解釋的方式，探討大法官於解釋文、 理由書，以及總統特赦令中的意涵作為探討之一部。期能藉由此文之 發想，對我國總統在特赦權使用上，描繪出可（或不可）使用的界線。

The problem of this study is that after the grand justice of the constitutional court proposed Constitutional Interpretation No. 803 concerning the case of Taitung Bunun hunter Tama Talum, President Tsai Ing-wen exempted Tama Talum from his “penalty” under amnesty but did not absolve him from his “crime.” In the Interpretation, the grand justice did not consider the act of Tama Talum to be entirely constitutional (or unconstitutional) but regarded the “majority” of relevant statutes as constitutional. Under this logic, the action of Tama Talum was indeed a violation of the current laws. If so, why did President Tsai Ing-wen grant amnesty, thereby exempting Tama Talum from his penalty? Does this act of the President granting amnesty a political tool to be used in response to public opinion? We adopted literal interpretation as the research method to discuss the Interpretation and reasoning of the grand justice as well as the implications of the presidential amnesty. The results of this study are expected to set a boundary for when to grant amnesty.