解構偵查不公開原則－－以表現自由試圖建構偵查適度公開原則

Deconstructing the Principle of Non-Disclosure of Investigation: An Attempt to Establish the Principle of Appropriate Disclosure Based on Freedom of Expression

偵查不公開概念甚廣且深，絕非透過現行刑事訴訟法第245 條第1 項之六字宣示性規定，即可穩健地作為一不容質疑之上位概念，令職司刑事偵查之公務員、被告或犯罪嫌疑人、辯護人、訴訟關係人、被害人、家屬等得不加思索地遵循同條第5 項除外規定、偵查不公開作業辦法等相關規定，於偵查階段操作偵查資訊之釋出與接收。
現行偵查資訊公開法制，採「原則不公開∕例外公開」之體例設計，長年來於實務運作上穩健地運行，卻屢屢產生偵辦機關選擇性洩密、新聞媒體八卦式罔顧被告、犯罪嫌疑人或被害人名譽、隱私或其他權益為人權侵害報導、偵辦機關球員兼裁判事後自我審查等諸多批評。國家機關對偵查資訊之限制，本質上在封鎖理應原則性公開之政府資訊，此舉除將致人民知的權利受有損害外，更因於資訊源頭即阻絕釋出，使新聞媒體無法獲取刑事案件相關之偵查資訊，令其無法行使制度性或工具性基本權利，以滿足其代行人民知的權利之憲政本職與特殊社會公器角色；況且，禁止偵查資訊之釋出或流通，亦屬對人民表現自由之重大干預。偵查不公開原則縱有其憲法上價值，仍不應於不符比例原則之傾斜天秤上，選擇性或不求檢討地罔視其他憲法保障之基本權利。
深究偵查不公開原則之內涵，現行法制除有違反形式合憲性之高度懷疑外，對於是否得通過實質合憲性之比例原則審查，亦有所疑慮。與其囿於不公開原則之框架下，透過反應式、片段式之修法對於瑕疵法制加以檢討並補正闕漏；毋寧對於憲法價值重新衡平，總體性檢討後改採「偵查適度公開原則」，令表現自由與知的權利等重要基本權利回歸原則不受限制之保障常軌，僅於逾越偵查秘密底線之特殊法定狀況，始例外限制該等有保密需求之偵查資訊公開。此種法制之檢討與翻轉，將使偵查資訊與特定憲法基本權利自不公開原則之囹圄中解放，更能符合國民主權之民主法治基礎。

The concept of non-disclosure of criminal investigations is expansive and complex. It cannot be firmly established as an unquestionable overarching principle merely through the brief declaratory provision in Article 245, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nor should it compel public officials conducting investigations, defendants, criminal suspects, defense counsel, interested parties, victims, or their families to unreflectively comply with the exception provisions under Paragraph 5 of the same article and the Regulations Governing Non- Disclosure of Investigations when managing the release and receipt of investigation information during the procedure of investigation.
The current legal framework governing the disclosure of investigation information adopts a legislative design of "non-disclosure as the rule, disclosure as the exception." While functioning stably in practice over many years, it has drawn recurring criticism regarding selective leaks by investigative authorities, sensationalist media coverage that infringes upon the reputation, privacy, or other rights of defendants, suspects, and victims, and self-review conducted by investigative authorities acting as judge and jury in their own cause. The state’s restriction on investigation information essentially locks down government information that ought to be disclosed by principle. This practice not only infringes upon the public’s right to know but also blocks the dissemination of information at its source, thereby depriving the news media of access to investigation details related to criminal cases. Consequently, the media is hindered from exercising its institutional or instrumental fundamental rights to fulfill its constitutional duty and special role as an instrument of public accountability acting on behalf of the public’s right to know. Furthermore, prohibiting the release or circulation of investigation information constitutes a severe interference with freedom of expression. Even if the principle of non-disclosure of investigations holds constitutional value, it should not blindly or unreflectively disregard other constitutionally protected fundamental rights on a tilted scale that fails to satisfy the principle of proportionality.
A rigorous examination of the principle of non-disclosure reveals that, beyond significant doubts regarding its formal constitutionality, the current statutory scheme remains questionable under the substantive constitutional review of proportionality. Rather than remaining confined within the framework of non-disclosure and making reactive, piecemeal legislative amendments to rectify statutory defects and omissions, it is preferable to rebalance constitutional values through a comprehensive review and adopt the "Principle of Appropriate Disclosure of Investigations." Under this approach, essential fundamental rights—such as freedom of expression and the right to know—are restored to their standard status of unrestricted protection, with restrictions applied only as exceptions to specific investigation information that requires secrecy when crossing defined legal boundaries. Such a paradigm shift and legislative overhaul will liberate investigation information and specific constitutional rights from the confines of the non-disclosure principle, thereby better aligning with the democratic rule-of-law foundation rooted in popular sovereignty.