【科際整合月刊】疫期中限制人民出境與人民行使人身自由權之競合
2022-09-14
| 期刊名：【科際整合月刊】疫期中限制人民出境與人民行使人身自由權之競合 |
| 卷數：7卷5期 |
| 出版時間：2022年5月 |
| 作者：李岳牧 |
| 出版者：科際整合月刊 |
| I S S N：無 |
| 中文摘要：18世紀法國哲學家將－賈克．盧梭（Jean-Jacques Rousseau）在其著作《社會契約論》（Le Contrat social）第一章中就明白地揭示：《人生而自由，然而卻遍地皆處於奴役狀態》（L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.），自由權應是基本人權中重要的一環。人權是天賦的最初權利（原權，original rights），是人的自然權利（natural rights）。而基本權利（Fundamental Rights）是國家制定法（statutory law）所創設出來的權利。人權與基本權在實質法益上大致相同，但在形式上卻不同。原權又稱自然權是先於國家而存在，不待形式之憲法的規定而自明，有其固有性外，其效力尚具有普遍性與永久性，不問何地、何時、何人，皆能適用，自然成為規範、制約「實定立法」（實定法；Positive legislation, Positive Gesetzgebung）的一種客觀普遍標準（李震山，2001：90）。質言之，即使憲法未明文規定保障自由權，國家仍不得放棄保障之義務，更何況在我國憲法第10條至第14條，人民的自由權均有明文規定受到憲法絕對的保障。基本權最初核心任務，是人民消極地抵抗公權利不法侵害，人身自由是基本權中最重要的權利之一。新冠疫期中限制人民出境與人民人身自由權行使之衝突，本文試著透過憲法第23條依比例原則之「立法保留」，憲法第8條的「法官保留」之正當法律程序，及「司法院釋字第690號解釋」、「司法院釋字第443號解釋」之「層級化保留」理論及相關法理，去檢視專業行政機關（衛生福利部）是否有恣意濫權？行政院的「在疫期中限制人民出境措施」是否為《傳染病防治法》第7條、《嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎及紓困振興特別條例》第7條的「空白授權」產物？ |
| 英文摘要：The 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau clearly revealed in the first chapter of his book ＂The Social Contract＂ (Le Contrat social): ＂Born to be free, but everywhere in slavery＂ (L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.), the right to freedom should be an important part of basic human rights. Human Rights are natural rights (original rights). Fundamental Rights (Droits fondamentaux) are rights created by the statutory law. Human rights and fundamental rights are roughly the same in terms of substantive legal benefits, but they are different in form. Original right, also known as natural right, exists before the state and is self -evident regardless of the provisions of the formal constitution. In addition to its inherent nature, its effect is universal and permanent. It can be applied regardless of where, when, or who. Naturally, it has become an objective universal standard that regulates and restricts ＂positive legislation＂ (Positive Gesetzgebung). In other words, even if the Constitution does not expressly guarantee the right to freedom, the state must still not waive its obligation to guarantee. What's more, in Articles 10 to 14 of the Constitution of our country, the people's right to freedom is expressly stipulated to be absolutely guaranteed by the Constitution. The original core task of fundamental rights was that people passively resist unlawful infringements of public rights, and personal freedom is one of the most important rights in fundamental rights. The conflict between restrictions on people's exit from the country and the exercise of people's personal freedom during the period of the COVID-19 epidemic. This article tries to use the ＂legislative reservation＂ (立法保留) of Article 23 of the Constitution, ＂the Due process＂ examined by the ＂reservation of judiciary＂ (法官保留) of Article 8 of the Constitution, the ＂Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 690 Interpretation＂ (「司法院釋字第690號解釋」), ＂hierarchical reservation＂ theory (「層級化保留」理論) of ＂Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 443 Interpretation＂ (「司法院釋字第443號解釋」) and related legal principles, to examine Does the Ministry of Health and Welfare (衛生福利部) have arbitrary abuse of power? Whether the Executive Yuan' s (行政院) ＂measures to restrict people's exit during the epidemic period＂ are Article 7 of the ＂Infectious Disease Control Act＂ (《傳染病防治法》第7條), and ＂Art. 7 of The Special Act for Prevention, Relief and Revitalization Measures for Severe with Novel Pathogens＂(《嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎及紓困振興特別條例》第7條) ＂Blank Authorization＂ (空白授權) product? |
| 年份：2022 |