查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論監察院聲請黨產條例釋憲案程序應否受理之問題--以憲法訴訟觀點探討=Examining the Petition Acceptance for Constitutional Interpretation Submitted by the Control Yuan on the Act of Governing the Settlement of Ill-Gotten Assets of Political Parties--From the Perspective of the Constitutional Procedures |
---|---|
作 者 | 楊子慧; | 書刊名 | 輔仁法學 |
卷 期 | 56 2018.12[民107.12] |
頁 次 | 頁77-137 |
分類號 | 581.24 |
關鍵詞 | 機關聲請釋憲; 司法院大法官; 聲請釋憲程序要件; 聲請釋憲客體; 行使職權適用法律; 監察院聲請釋憲; 憲法訴訟程序之列舉原則; 司法院大法官審理案件法; The judicial review on the motion of an institution; The Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan; Petitioning essentials for constitutional interpretation procedures; Petitioning agency for constitutional interpretation; Exercising authority with applicable law; Petition for constitutional interpretation by the Control Yuan; Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 監察院聲請黨產條例釋憲案之爭議,本文認為程序上允宜不予受理:首先,大法官歷來職權行使依據的三部法規範皆有行使職權要件之規定,是大審法第5條第1項第1款機關聲請釋憲應以行使職權為聲請釋憲程序之法定核心要件。聲請機關應於聲請書內敘明其提出聲請係基於憲法或法律規定的何種職權之行使,並應進一步陳述其職權行使之內涵,以及其行使職權如何適用系爭有違憲疑義之法律。對於聲請機關行使職權要件之內涵,應由大法官於審查聲請案件時,加以認定及闡明。其次,本案主要涉及監察院的調查權,依釋字第325號、第729號解釋,監察院之調查權,係行使彈劾、糾舉、糾正等監察職權之手段,僅係監察權行使之方式之一。憲法規定對監察院行使調查權之內涵,乃因公務人員或行政機關之工作及設施有違法失職情事,對之進行調查,如有具體且明確之事證,方得以對之提出彈劾案、糾舉案或糾正案。惟本件依聲請書所陳,調查權行使之事實及結論,無法得出調查權之行使,乃合於憲法規定調查權行使目的、功能及對象。再由「行使職權,適用法律」之界定而論,系爭黨產條例顯然並非監察院行使調查權所「涉及」或「適用」之法律,毋寧係調查權行使之「目的」及「客體」。本件聲請意旨未見合於聲請釋憲程序法定要件「行使職權」之論述,既不符憲法規定調查權行使之內涵,且調查權行使並未適用系爭條例,本件聲請核與本款之聲請要件有所不合,程序上允宜不予受理。司法院大法官亦於民國107年10月05日第1482次會議中,議決本件「監察院聲請解釋黨產條例違憲部分」程序不受理。 |
英文摘要 | This paper argues that procedurally the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan should dismiss the petition for constitutional interpretation submitted by the Control Yuan on the Act of Governing the Settlement of Ill-Gotten Assets of Political Parties. First, the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, Article 1, Section1, Clause 1 states that the core of the constitutional judicial proceedings on the petition of an agency should be centered on the exercising authority of a petitioning institution. The petitioning agency should describe the type of authority exercised in the petition statement based on the Constitution or relevant regulations as well as elucidate the structure of petitioning agency and address legal concerns pertaining to the constitutional judicial review. The Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan would then set to review the petition content submitted by the petitioning agency. Secondly, this issue involves the investigating power of the Control Yuan. Facts and conclusions described in the petition reveals that execution of investigating power cannot be derived or inferred which is incongruent with the purpose, function, and object of investigating power according to the Constitution. Thirdly, in regard to "executing authority with applicable law", the above-mentioned constitutional act and article disassociates the Control Yuan to exercise relevant investigating power with applicable law pertaining to the Act of Governing the Settlement of Ill-Gotten Assets of Political Parties as the Control Yuan is neither the function nor the object of such investigating power. From the constitutional procedures perspective, such petition should be rejected as it does not meet the requirement of exercising authority of petitioning agency for constitutional interpretation because of its ill-founded content and inapplicable legal investigating power. On October 5^(th), 2018, the council (No. 1482) of Grand Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan decided not to accept the petition submitted by the Control Yuan. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。