證券交易法第6條第1項「核定」法律性質之辨正

An Argument on the Legal Nature of Approval in Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act

證券交易法為我國規範證券交易行為之主要法令，司法院大法官就該法已有多號解釋宣告部分條文為違憲，此事實已警示該法之各項規定，並非當然合憲。同法第6條第1項「核定」之性質，如承認其為立法授權訂定法規命令之條款，則於對照同法其他相關規定，顯然可見其授權欠缺明確性，惟本文認為，宜解為係主管機關對具體有價證券所為之行政處分核定，人民始易於遵守。前揭規定與同法第22條第1項、第4項之規範功能及目的恐非相同，不宜同論。
其次，於1987年間該法之主管機關即財政部，因前揭條項規定，製發該年9月12日臺財證字第00900號函，迄今仍有為法院所引用，甚且成為民事判決、刑事判決之關鍵依據，該函涉及行政法體系地位之定性，因此，亟有必要嚴予檢視是否違反法律保留原則或因之違反罪刑法定原則，俾維護人民合法權益。而由該函之受文者及副本受文者均為斯時財政部之下屬機關「證券管理委員會」乙節以觀，應認係機關內部間觀念通知之事實行為，不具對外性及法效性，因此，應不生對外拘束人民自由權利之效力；該函雖經公告，惟依行政院秘書處函釋，其公告者為「函」，是以其公告措施不該當於中央法規標準法或行政程序法之發布程序；另查，該函並未列入目前主管機關金管會網際網路法規檢索體系中，則不應冒然認定其係有效行政命令，甚或係法規命令；又，該函與中央法規標準法法規命令法定名稱不合，其若為法規命令，經查並未於行政程序法施行後2年內，踐行訂定或修正程序，則已失效；若對照金管會將類似函文定位為行政規則，亦因涉及人民自由權益之限制，且增加法律所無之限制，復有逾越母法之嫌。綜此，倘司法裁判引之為據，當應審慎，並依司法院釋字第38號、第137號、第216號等解釋意旨，予以拒絕適用。

The Securities and Exchange Act is enacted to regulate and supervise the trading of securities, but some provisions of this Act were declared unconstitutionally. Therefore, we should consider that not all provisions of this Act are certainly constitutional, for example, the legal nature of“approval”(Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act). If we consider“approval”as Legal Delegation, it lacks specific statutory authorization compared with other relevant provisions of the same law. This article believes the legal nature of“approval”is not legal delegation, but a type of administrative disposition.
Secondly, the official Document No. 900 issued by the competent authority of the Securities and Exchange Act (the Ministry of Finance) in 1987, is still cited by courts and has even become the basis for civil and criminal judgments. Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the legal nature of this document and determine whether it violates the principle of legal reservation or the principle of legally prescribed punishment to protect people’s rights and interests. Additionally, observe from the receiving agency, the Securities Firm Division affiliated with the Ministry of Finance, this document should be regarded as internal guidance, it does not have the effect of binding people’s rights and should not be deemed a legal order. Even if some people believe that the official document is legal order, but it has not been re-amended or re-established after the Administrative Procedure Act came into force, it shall become inoperative, the court should follow the J.Y. interpretations and not apply it.