具體規範審查之目的功能及其程序合法要件：以司法院釋字第786號解釋所涉權力分立及制裁性規範之違憲審查疑義為中心

The Purposes and Functions of Concrete Judicial Review and its Admissibility: An Analysis on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 786

司法院釋字第786號解釋之多數意見與少數意見就應否受理法官釋憲聲請，以及宜否深入個案指示其所應適用之法律存有歧見。考其原因，實是出於兩方對具體規範審查之目的功能及程序合法要件應如何解釋之認識不同。爰此，本文乃就具體規範審查之目的功能，以及就本號解釋之聲請案而言，決定應否受理之程序合法要件詳為研究。本文於分析後指出，具體規範審查之主要目的在於維護法一致性與法安定性，個人權利僅是間接獲得保障。此外，具體規範審查應以現行有效之法律作為審查標的，法律變動後原則上舊法已非合法之審查標的，但在舊法仍為原因案件之先決問題，且訴訟仍有實益之情形可能形成例外，惟此時仍應斟酌違憲審查機關是否適宜代替立法者指示具體所應適用之規範。又法官聲請具體規範審查，應確定所聲請之規範已無合憲解釋可能，是以於涉及處罰或制裁性質之規範時，應將行為與制裁規範合併考察，否則將無法完整說明規範意義。至於新修正之行政罰法第5條本文已將「行政機關最初」等語刪除，僅保留「裁處時」，故解釋上宜認為其亦包含訴願及行政訴訟之決定在內，故行為後法律若為有利於受處罰者之變更，法院即應適用最有利於受處罰者之法律。

The majority opinion and the minority opinion in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 786 debate on whether judicial review petitions from lower court judges should be admitted, and whether it is appropriate to give in-depth instructions on the applied law. The cause of this debate roots indeed in their different understanding of the purposes and functions of concrete judicial review, and how the requirement of admissibility be correctly interpreted. In this regard, this article analyzes the aforementioned differences in order to advise the Taiwanese Constitutional Court in deciding those issues. This article argues that the main purpose of concrete judicial review is to maintain legal consistency and legal stability; by contrast, individual rights are protected only indirectly. The object of concrete judicial review should be the current effective law. Thus, the law before the legislative change is in principle no longer a legitimate object for review. But when the lower court decision was based on the law before the legislative change, the petition for judicial review would be still beneficial for the petitioner, thus constituting an exception. In this case, the boundary for the constitutional court’s legislative instruction would be another question to consider. In addition, before presenting a petition for concrete judicial review, the lower court should be sure that the law in question has no room to be construed constitutionally. So, when it comes to penalty or sanction laws, the laws that govern actions and sanctions should be examined simultaneously, for the meaning of the laws would not be fully explained otherwise. Besides, since Article 5 of the Administrative Penalty Law changed the phrase “when sanction therefore was initially imposed by the administrative agency shall apply” to “when sanction was imposed shall apply”, administrative petition and administrative litigation process should follow the new legislation as administrative agencies do. Accordingly, if the law is changed in favor of the punished person after their action, the court should apply the law most favorable to the punished person.