刑罰規範之明確性審查──釋憲實務之回顧與前瞻

Review of the Clarity of Criminal Regulations: A Retrospective and Prospective Analysis of Constitutional Interpretation Practice

在台灣釋憲實務上，刑罰規範之明確性審查標準正處於轉型期。在司法院釋字第792號解釋承認罪刑法定原則為獨立憲法原則之前，刑罰規範之明確性審查模式具有雙軌加雙標的特徵：完整刑法適用法律明確性與刑罰明確性原則，空白刑法適用授權明確性與刑罰明確性原則。在司法院釋字第792號解釋之後，憲法法庭逐漸提升刑罰明確性原則在刑罰規範憲法審查上的重要性，但是尚未釐清此一原則與法律明確性及授權明確性的關係。本文認為，憲法罪刑法定原則所蘊含的刑罰明確性原則，未來應該成為憲法法庭審查刑罰規範明確性的唯一標準。基於刑罰明確性原則的權限確保與自由保障功能，刑罰規範應兼具規範密度充足性與規範內容清晰性，始符合刑罰明確性原則。上述刑罰明確性審查標準，得被轉化爲法律明確性審查上慣用之可審查性與可預見性要件，一體適用於完整刑法與空白刑法，取代目前的刑罰規範明確性審查模式。

In Taiwan’s constitutional practice, the review standards for the clarity of criminal regulations are currently undergoing a transformation. Before the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 792, which recognized the principle of legality in criminal law (the principle of no crime or punishment without law) as an independent constitutional principle, the standards for reviewing the clarity of criminal regulations had dual tracks and dual standards: (1) the clarity of the law applied to the full criminal code and the principle of clarity of penalties, and (2) the clarity of authorization for the application of incomplete criminal laws and the principle of clarity of penalties. After Interpretation No. 792, the Constitutional Court has gradually elevated the importance of the principle of clarity of penalties in constitutional review of criminal regulations. However, the relationship between this principle, the clarity of laws, and the clarity of authorizations remains unresolved. This article argues that, moving forward, the principle of clarity of penalties inherent in the principle of legality should become the sole standard for the Constitutional Court when reviewing the clarity of criminal regulations. Based on the protective functions of ensuring legal authority and safeguarding individual freedoms, criminal regulations should meet two key requirements to comply with the principle of clarity of penalties: sufficient normative density and clear normative content. Specifically, the Constitutional Court can apply the commonly used standards of justiciability and foreseeability from the clarity of laws review to the content of criminal regulations, adopting the above standards as a unified framework for reviewing the clarity of criminal penalties. This approach should apply consistently to both the full criminal code and incomplete criminal laws, replacing the current dual-track, dual-standard review model.