| 關 鍵 詞： |
悔過；人身自由；法官保留；言論自由；消極不表意自由；沉默自由；比例原則 |
| 中文摘要： |
新修正的陸海空軍懲罰法，為了呼應軍中人權保障的法治意識，乃將士官懲罰種類刪除「管訓」，保留「悔過」，士兵部分亦刪除「管訓」，「禁閉」則修正為「悔過」。「悔過」懲罰，性質上屬拘束人身自由之處罰類型，本法所採準用提審法規定處理之救濟程序，是否符合大法官解釋所揭示「法官保留原則」之軌跡脈絡及學界之看法，而合於憲法第 8 條之規範意旨，容有探討餘地。另執行「悔過」懲罰與責令被懲罰人簽立「悔過保證書」之行為，是否干預被懲罰人的「消極不表意自由」，而有違憲法保障言論自由之人民基本權，亦有探究空間。新法呼應軍中人權保障所為的修正，雖已確立新的里程碑，但仍應有更宏觀的思維，確保軍中人權的保障更符合時代趨勢。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Penitence；Personal Freedom；Principle of Retention For Judge’s Decisions；Freedom of Speech；Negative Non-Ideographic Freedom；Freedom of Silence；Principle of Proportionality |
| 英文摘要： |
In order to be consistent with the legal consciousness of the protection of human rights in military, the latest amendment of the Armed Forces Punishment Act has deleted the Reforming Training and reserves the Penitence in non-commissioned officers’ punishment; the Reforming Training was also deleted and Confinement was amended to Penitence for enlisted soldiers’ punishment. As for enlisted soldiers’ punishment, Reforming Training was deleted and Confinement was amended to Penitence. Because the essence of Penitence belongs to the restraint of personal liberties, thereby the procedure for the latest amendment of Act of Punishment of the Armed Forces is applicable mutatis mutandis of the Trial Procedure of Habeas Corpus Act. However, whether the remedy procedure conforms to both principles of retention for judge’s decision and scholarly opinions, the implication of the Article 8 of the Constitution or not, needs more in-depth discussion. Moreover, signing a statement of repentance seems to oppress the right of Negative freedom not ideographic in the Penitent procedure. Therefore, The process disobeying the protection of freedom of speech and the Constitution still requires further discussions. Since the latest amendment of Punishment Acts of the Armed Force sets a milestone to protect human rights in military, a broadened perspective is in need to ensure that the amendment accords with the trend of human rights protection.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、憲法保障「人身自由」之觀點
一、司法院大法官會議解釋所揭示之軌跡
（一）解釋意旨摘要
（二）非刑事被告人身自由之保障與法官保留原則類型化之採擇
二、學者見解之觀察
（一）絕對法官保留說
（二）區分類型說
三、「悔過」懲罰決議程序與即時有效司法救濟程序之評析
（一）「悔過」是拘束人身自由之懲罰
（二）具處罰性質之處分
（三）評議程序與即時有效之司法救濟程序與憲法意旨有違
參、憲法保障「言論自由」之觀點
一、憲法保障下的「消極不表意自由」
（一）「消極不表意自由」保障的憲法基礎
（二）思想、良心自由與人性尊嚴保障的憲法價值
二、「悔過」懲罰之執行干預被懲罰人之「消極不表意自由」
（一）「悔過」規範目的與本質的應然
（二）執行「悔過」與「消極不表意自由」
（三）責令被懲罰人簽立悔過書與「消極不表意自由」
（四）小結
三、合憲性之檢驗
（一）形式規範的合憲性審查
（二）實質規範限制的合憲性審查
肆、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|