新冠肺炎流行期間國籍航空機師提審案件之分析

An Analysis of Courts' Decisions on Petitions for Habeas Corpus by Quarantined National Airline Pilots

自2020年初新冠肺炎肆虐全球，臺灣在近三年時間內，限制數百萬人之人身自由。本文藉由查詢提審案件，發現自2020年7月起至2022年7月止，共有92件因防治新冠肺炎接受隔離或檢疫措施者，向地方法院聲請提審之案例，其中有68件由國籍航空公司的機師/副機師聲請之提審，占了所有案件的四分之三，其中有4件裁定釋放。分析68件法院裁定內容，法院有限縮拘禁定義及審理範圍、未遵守開提審票、訊問調查之提審程序要求之傾向；法院雖就檢疫處分進行實質審查，但未發現限制機師人身自由的法律運作實況是中央疫情流行指揮中心、疾病管制署、交通部民用航空局未遵守管轄法定與法律保留，使航空公司實質上享有支配機師人身自由的權力。在人身自由保障仍仰賴提審制度下，法院應強化行政機關舉證義務，充實實質審查內涵；傳染病防治法應增訂檢疫之定義及實體要件，並就因應一般法定傳染病及新興傳染病流行，分別提供保障程度不同之及時救濟程序，確保公衛權力與人身自由之平衡。

The COVID-19 has ravaged the world since the beginning of 2020. Taiwan government has restricted the personal freedom of millions of people in the past three years. To find out if and how people seek relief for quarantine, courts decisions were collected in July 2022 through searches on the“Judicial Yuan Law and Regulations Retrieving System”to identify petitions involving Habeas Corpus by quarantined or isolated detainees. Ninety-two court decisions were found from July 2020 to July 2022. The Habeas Corpus petitioned by National Airline pilots accounted for three-quarters of all cases, of which 4 detainees were ruled to be released. Analysis of 68 court rulings showed that the court limited the definition of detention and the scope for review, and failed to comply with the requirements of issuing summons and interrogation under the Habeas Corpus Act. The courts conducted a substantive review of the quarantine orders without finding the reality of the practice is that the Central Epidemic Command Center, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Civil Aviation Administration of the Ministry of Communications violated the jurisdiction and authority granted to them by statute, allowing airlines employers to control the personal freedom of pilots. Since petitions for Habeas Corpus remains the only relief available for quarantined and isolated detainees, the courts should oblige the administrative agencies to provide evidence and enrich the connotation of substantive examination. To ensure the balance between public health and personal freedom, the Communicable Disease Control Act should add the definition and substantive conditions of quarantine, and provide timely procedural protections against quarantine measure in responding common infectious diseases and emerging infectious diseases, respectively.