| 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 |
| 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。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
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 |
| 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 5th, 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.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、聲請事由及釋憲程序審查之基礎
一、聲請事由：主旨、目的及緣由
二、憲法訴訟程序之列舉原則與現行大法官釋憲程序
貳、機關聲請法令釋憲程序之探討
一、立法沿革與釋憲實務概述
二、大法官釋憲實務中機關聲請法令釋憲之程序及客體分析
（一）聲請釋憲書與大法官解釋皆概括以機關聲請釋憲之程序聲請及受理
（二）依聲請釋憲書與大法官解釋內容得認係法令違憲與憲法疑義之解釋兩項程序及客體類型兼具之解釋
（三）機關概括以大審法第 5 條第 1 項第 1 款規定聲請，大法官受理後限縮解釋客體
（四）小結
參、機關聲請釋憲程序之「行使職權」
一、大法官歷來職權行使依據的三部法規範及 107 年憲法訴訟法皆有行使職權要件之規定
二、實務上機關聲請及大法官解釋均未重視行使職權之要件
三、學理討論
四、本文見解：行使職權應為機關聲請釋憲程序之法定核心要件
五、本件釋憲聲請難謂符合行使職權，適用法律之要件
（一）監察院之調查權，係行使彈劾、糾舉及糾正權之手段
（二）本件調查權之行使，並無適用系爭條例
肆、結論
一、本件監察院聲請釋憲案允宜不予受理
二、大法官第 1482 次會議議決不受理監察院聲請釋憲案
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|