授權金融主管機關補充法規範的憲法限制

Constitutional Constraints on Authorizing Financial Regulatory Authorities to Supplement Laws

美國法院對禁止授權原則採取極為寬鬆的審查態度，僅要求母法授權時提供「可理解原則」。美國更強調規則制定程序的強化，以及後續司法審查的監督。美國第五巡迴法院2022年在Jarkesy v. SEC案中，認為多德—弗蘭克法（Dodd-Frank Act）對SEC的某一授權規定，違反禁止授權原則。台灣的授權明確性原則大幅受到德國學說理論之影響。綜合比較美國、德國與台灣，本文提出，金融管制法律授權主管機關補充法規時的憲法限制。倘若是單純行政管制／行政責任，在授權明確性的要求上可採寬鬆審查，但仍應遵守公告與蒐集書面意見之程序。若被授權制定的行政管制事項會連結到刑事責任，對授權明確性的要求採嚴格審查。且行政機關應該主動進行聽證，依照聽證紀錄作成最終法規決定並說明理由。

The U.S. courts adopt an extremely lenient scrutiny attitude towards the Non-Delegation Doctrine and only require Congress to provide the“Intelligible Principle”as a guideline. The United States puts more emphasis on the strengthening of rule-making procedures and the supervision of subsequent judicial review. In the case of Jarkesy v. SEC in 2022, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court held that a certain delegation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act to the SEC violated the Non-Delegation Doctrine. The Principle of Explicit Delegation in Taiwan is greatly influenced by the German doctrine. After comparing the regulations and theories in United States, Germany, and Taiwan comprehensively, this article proposes the constitutional limitations of financial regulatory laws delegate competent authorities to supplement rules. In the case of administrative control/administrative liability, lenient review can be adopted in terms of the review of the Principle of Explicit Delegation, but the procedures for notice and collection of written comments should still be followed. If the authorized administrative control matters will be linked to criminal liability, the requirements for the Principle of Explicit Delegation shall be strictly reviewed, and the administrative agency should take the initiative to conduct a hearing, and make a final regulatory decision based on the hearing record and explain the reasons.