處理不當黨產與推動轉型正義之憲法基礎──以釋字第793號解釋「匡正或回復自由民主憲政秩序」為中心

The Constitutional Basis for Settling Ill-gotten Party Assets and Implementing Transitional Justice: Centering on“Correction and Reconstruction of the Liberal and Democratic Constitutional Order”in Interpretation No. 793

司法院釋字第793號解釋認為「政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例」部分規定合憲，其中指出我國過去政府體制和國家運作「與自由民主憲政秩序大有扞格」，宣示為匡正自由民主憲政秩序、落實轉型正義是憲法上「特別重要之公共利益」。惟本解釋以建立政黨公平競爭秩序作為論述主軸，對於「舊政權執政黨及其附隨組織如何不當取得財產」和「政府制定溯及性特別立法處理威權時期不當黨產之正當性」，並未從「自由民主憲政秩序價值之貫徹與延續」予以評價。就此，本文分別論述我國憲法「自由民主憲政秩序」理論發展、「自由民主憲政秩序」作為我國推動轉型正義憲法基礎，並回應黨產處理與法治國原則間的衝突議題。本文第二部分從釋憲案例闡釋我國憲法自由民主憲政秩序概念，肯定本解釋將「國家基於匡正與回復自由民主憲政秩序之憲法義務」作為「轉型正義之目標」。第三部分將介紹轉型正義之意義，特别是大法官對於威權體制規範評價典範移轉，以及本號解釋將轉型憲政主義意義內化為中華民國憲法之中。本文試圖分析轉型正義作為我國憲法價值之理由，以及個案立法與溯及既往之合憲性。本文以為，「自由民主憲政秩序之貫徹與延續」可作為支持本號解釋溯及既往與個案立法論證上之合憲理由。本文由衷希望這篇論著有助於深化與探討推動轉型正義之憲法對話。

In 2020, the Taiwan Constitutional Court (hereinafter TCC) released Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 793 (hereinafter No. 793), concluding the special legislation constitutional to dealing with party’s appropriation of government funds during the authoritarian period. For the first time at the Constitutional level, TCC acknowledged transitional justice to be a “compelling public interest”, and ruled that the authoritarian regime is incompatible with the constitutional order of liberal democracy. This article intends to analyze the theory of “correction and reconstruction of the constitutional order of liberal democracy”, as well as the constitutional basis for implementing transitional justice in Taiwan. More specifically, part II reviews the development of “constitutional order of liberal democracy” and the Party-state system interpreted in No. 793. Part III then examines the concept of the so-called transitional justice in the constitutional context, particularly the paradigm shift of judicial interpretation about the laws and background of the authoritarian rule in Taiwan. No. 793 is a landmark decision that TCC interpreted the transitional justice and transitional constitutionalism in ROC Constitution. It rests on jurisprudence that had developed regarding “the constitutional order of liberal democracy”. This article attempts to analyze the reason of transitional justice as a constitutional value, and the constitutionality of individualized law (Einzelfallgesetz) and retrospective application. It concludes that “consistency and continuation of the constitutional order of liberal democracy” can uphold the legitimacy and constitutionality on the retroactivity and individualized law in No. 793. With a systematic survey from a normative viewpoint, I hope that this article facilitates the dialogue between the constitution and transitional justice.