tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31503158814286899722024-03-14T06:00:10.691+08:00新憲法新想法—我的國家新想像鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-89877629607869080872015-09-02T18:37:00.001+08:002015-09-02T18:37:30.492+08:00新憲法論壇:9/1 - 10/31 總統制、內閣制、半總統制之選擇<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>總統制、內閣制、半總統制之選擇 / 詹晉鑒</b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">政府體制如何定位,通常端視行政權掌握於何者。比方說「內閣制」便是行政權掌握在內閣,「總統制」則以總統為最高行政首長。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">而我國目前的政府體制,較多數的說法認為是「半總統制」或「雙首長制」。因為,依據「憲法本文」規定雖仍以行政院長為最高行政首長,但目前憲法增修條文已經明定總統的行政職權,為決定國家安全有關大政方針。故行政權看似已分屬行政院長與總統,與法國的「雙首長制」較為接近;且因為總統雖然係全民直選,但並未掌握所有行政權,就學理上,與其他「總統制」國家的總統相比,較為弱勢,又稱「半總統制」。故目前較多數看法認為,我國至少已經不是國會優位的國家,而是偏向「半總統制」或「雙首長制」的國家。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">其實不論何種政府體制的選擇,由於各自有各自的優點與缺點,故不論如何選擇,只要在「正常民主國家」的前提之下,任何政府體制之採擇,皆有運作順暢的國家。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">台灣雖於<span lang="EN-US">2000</span>年政黨輪替,惟並未完全落實轉型正義,例如仍有政黨存有鉅額黨產,語言、文化及歷史仍由外來政權居主導地位,司法不完全獨立等。以上情形都與正常民主國家仍有段距離,導致目前政府體制的困境。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">換言之,只要台灣一日未能達成正常化民主國家,縱然選擇「內閣制」,是否可能讓有黨產的政黨被輪替的可能性大幅降低?又維持現行的「雙首長制」或改採「總統制」,總統與國會同黨時,可能造成總統一意孤行,例如馬政府;總統與國會不同黨時,反倒施政處處遭國會制肘,例如扁政府。因此,唯有完全落實轉型正義,才有可能突破目前政府體制的困境。</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif; font-size: large;">(本文作者為執業律師/台北市文山區萬興里里長)</span></div>
鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-56263892743047792532015-05-01T09:47:00.000+08:002015-09-02T18:44:27.579+08:00新憲法論壇:5/1 - 6/30 進步人權入憲<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">進步人權入憲 / 陳冠瑋</span></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />近來修憲的呼聲四起,有政黨提案「擴充人權清單」,將「環境權」、「勞動權」等對台灣而言較新的第二代、第三代人權納入憲法中。而關於憲法上人權的補充,向來有些許多團體在推動,如2014年的巢運也主張「居住權」入憲。事實上,當前憲法的人權清單在1990年代集中在政府體制的七次修憲中並無變動,亦即,明文寫在憲法上的人權從1947年以來便未再變更,不過由於憲法第22條非列舉權之設計,隱私權、姓名權等權利也透過大法官解釋,成為具有憲法位階的人權。實則,進步人權要進入憲法,除了制憲或透過修憲的方式納入,也有等待有大法官做出「與時俱進」之肯定解釋的機會,但時程、方式在實踐上會有些不同。<br /><br />而同樣也有針對對人權清單的擴充質疑的意見。有的意見並不反對這些權利應該受到保障,而比較是保障機制的問題,例如認為這些權利拉到憲法位階不一定會比放進法律有更完善的保障,還是可能看得到吃不到,因為不論如何重點仍是在國會的角力,入憲宣示的意義可能還較大。但就算是宣示,對於保障這些權利能否有何種幫助呢?<br /><br />也可能認為,任意的擴充、調整人權清單會破壞憲法的權威性(但有修憲門檻之控制,需要全國九百多萬選舉人之同意),或認為某些權利的納入並不符合台灣的狀況或草率納入內容不明確的權利會使得當前的人權保障體系受到影響,而實質上反對這些權利納入憲法位階保障。<br /><br />而經常在討論的幾個需要入憲的人權,例如環境權,長期有環團主張應該放入憲法,提供確實的保障。但環境權的概念,除了內涵會隨時間變動、在判斷上需要高度的專業,由法官來承載這些判斷的工作是否合適?<br /><br />又以居住權為例,兩公約上的適足居住權作為人權,是人人都享有的,不限於有房產的人,但國家資源有限,適與足應該如何判斷?用誰的標準判斷?然而,在有立法以前人民在法院其實是沒有權利可以主張的,而如果沒有憲法條文,可以期待立法機關立法嗎?<br /><br />另外有關於集體權的討論。集體權是第三代人權的主要主張之一,認為個人權利式的保障沒有辦法處理許多以群體為單位的問題,像是婦女、原住民族等的集體權,也被要求納入憲法。但是集體權該如何設計、救濟?以原住民族的權利為例,群體內的聲音也不一定完全相同,這時應該採用多數決嗎?或是誰來決定?依照原住民族部落的決策方式是否為一種可能?<br /><br />當然,在修憲門檻極高的台灣,進步人權的入憲並非易事,是否、如何將哪些權利納入憲法清單,需要大家進一步的討論!</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">(本文作者為國立台灣大學法律學研究所公法學組學生)</span></div>
鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-1641750320857724492015-03-01T09:42:00.000+08:002015-09-02T18:38:34.360+08:00新憲法論壇:2015年改為1月、5月、9月上線<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">自2015年起,新憲法論壇改為1月、5月、9月的1號上線,歡迎大家參與討論!</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>新憲法論壇</b>為鄭南榕基金會年度活動,透過線上論壇方式,希望提供沒有法律背景的大眾參與討論機會,讓憲法議題走入生活,拉近距離。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">如有任何問題,歡迎來信services@nylon.org.tw或來電02-2546-8766。</span><br />
<br />鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-51537787354349384172015-02-03T17:46:00.003+08:002015-09-02T18:45:22.706+08:00新憲法論壇:1/1 - 2/28「人民」具有維護憲政秩序的「義務」嗎?<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US"><b> </b></span><b>「人民」具有維護憲政秩序的「義務」嗎? / </b><span lang="EN-US"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></span><b>簡年佑 </b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">這個問題或許應該先分成兩個層次討論,以下將分別從國家或是人民,以及權利或是義務進一步說明。現代憲政主義下的世界各國憲章,絕大多數都是以民主原則、人權保障為目的,體現出「國家或政府」必須積極維護憲政秩序正常運作的規範體系,那麼憲法當中是否賦予了「人民」同樣的義務?相較於國家可以運用公權力致力於憲政秩序的基本要求,譬如定期選舉、維持各機關穩定運作、司法機關避免人民權利受損等等,人民如何維護憲法?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span>另一方面,觀察其他國家,德國基本法第<span lang="EN-US">20</span>條直接明文規定,人民遇到任何人(包含政府)從事危害自由民主原則、排除權力分立等違反憲政秩序之行為時,皆「有權反抗」。這個憲法層次的條文足以作為維護憲法保障人權、捍衛自由與民主的正當依據,然而這樣的規定,雖然是清楚明確的說明人民保衛憲法價值而能阻卻違法,但是解釋上仍然僅止於賦予人民抵抗暴政、保衛憲法精神的「基本權利」,卻不能夠推導出國家中的每個人民都有「義務」為了國家的這部憲法以及規定的種種基本原則,積極的參與政治、影響決策或者時時刻刻監督。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">而台灣,目前憲法不僅沒有類似上述抵抗權的規定,如何使人民有權利對抗可能危害憲政秩序的政府,這也正是去年<span lang="EN-US">318</span>佔領立院運動及其一系列抗爭之後,憲改呼聲之中屢屢被提及的。並且我們也應該同時關照,如何建構人民對國家憲法與人權保障的理解,確立憲法精神最重要的價值為何,怎樣對於守護憲政秩序產生強烈義務感,此些都是在目前陸續開啟修憲進程的此刻,更值得人民一起來深思與討論。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(本文作者為國立台灣大學法律學研究所學生)</span>鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-26086230376594127602014-11-06T11:46:00.000+08:002015-09-02T18:44:01.317+08:00新憲法論壇:11/1-12/31 無法政黨輪替的國會<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">無法政黨輪替的國會 / </span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">王鼎棫 </span></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">在探討「無法政黨輪替的國會」之際,本文認可就司法院釋字第<span lang="EN-US">721</span>號進行觀察。因該號釋字,正是依憲法體檢我國立委選舉制度之代表作;也就是說,針對立委選舉,現行「單一選票兩票制之並立制、選區劃分、政黨代表席次分配、政黨門檻」之設計是否合乎憲法「選舉平等」之要求?固然,如同大法官所言,有關「並立制、及政黨代表席次分配」之設計,尚無必然憲法要求,而屬修憲者之形成空間;而以「一縣至少一人」之選區劃分方式,則為滿足</span><span style="font-family: "新細明體","serif";">匯集不同地方選民之民意,盼能於國會中協調各式利害關係,亦未牴觸憲法第<span lang="EN-US">7</span>條及第<span lang="EN-US">129</span>條所示之「選舉平等原則」。然而,針對政黨門檻的存立,本文則持不同見解認為:該制度雖係為避免小黨林立、影響國會效率所設,可現實上確難證明「立院議事效率」的確已受到其他小型政黨之嚴重干擾;此外,該制度甚至過度妨害小黨發展,造成國、民兩大黨之寡占,使少數聲音欠缺發聲管道,無處可去,進而淤積「非體制抗爭」之能量,反而有害民主秩序之穩定發展,形成政黨無法輪替的結果</span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">。是該制度有</span><span style="font-family: "新細明體","serif";">違反憲法第<span lang="EN-US">7</span>條及第<span lang="EN-US">129</span>條所示「選舉平等原則」之嫌疑</span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">而本論壇更重視您的看法。<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">現行國會相關制度之運作下,是否封殺抑或有助政黨輪替的實踐?</span></span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif; font-size: large;">進而能維護「主權在民」的憲法要求?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">本論壇期待與您的意見交流,敬請指教。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "新細明體","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">(本文作者為</span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">東吳大學法律學系博士班學生</span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">)</span></span></div>
鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-82988287112603129722014-09-10T12:33:00.000+08:002015-09-02T18:42:26.052+08:00新憲法論壇:9/1-10/31 我對國家的新想像-沒有罷免的罷免法<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>我對國家的新想像-沒有罷免的罷免法/</b></span><b style="font-family: 標楷體;">詹晉鑒</b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: 標楷體; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">一、</span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">沒有罷免的「鳥籠」罷免法</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">中華民國憲法本文第</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">133</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">條規定被選舉人得由原選舉區「依法」罷免之,此為我國國民行使罷免權的憲法依據。進一步來說,憲法雖賦予人們罷免權,但如何行使,如何操作,仍待立法院立法規範相關細節,我們才可以「依法」行使罷免權。只不過,這部罷免法其實是一部「鳥籠」罷免法,需要經過很嚴格的程序才能夠行使。簡言之,依照公職人員選舉罷免法規定,至少需要經過以下程序:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(一)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">提議罷免人數</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">提議人必須是被罷免人原選區之選舉人,提議人數須達該選區選舉人總數的</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">2%</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">以上。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(二)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">連署人數</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">提議人數到達以上門檻後,接著是在要被罷免人原選區進行連署的工作。通過連署的門檻也不低,連署人必須是被罷免人原選區選舉人,連署人數須達該選區選舉人總數的</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">13%</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">以上。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(三)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">投票率門檻</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">罷免區投票人數需要原選舉區選舉人總數</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">50%</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">以上,也就是投票率必須高達</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">50%</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">以上。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(四)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">同意罷免門檻</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">同意罷免票數,必須超過有效票數的</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">50%</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">以上。換言之,縱使投票率超過</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">50%</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,也必須出來投票的人有一半以上支持罷免被罷免人,才會成功。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: 標楷體; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">二、</span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">「鳥籠」公投法</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">V.S</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">「鳥籠」罷免法</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">我們可以利用下表比較一下「鳥籠」公投法和罷免法:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">公投法</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.4pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">罷免法</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">提案人數門檻</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.4pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">連署門檻</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.4pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">投票率門檻</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.4pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">有效票門檻</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.4pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ˇ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">內部審查機制</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.35pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: large;">公投審議委員會(下稱公審會)<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 139.4pt;" valign="top" width="186"><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: large;">╳<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">經對照後,不禁讓人驚覺罷免法與公投法的在設計上竟然如此相似(雖僅相差內部審查機制,但公審會這種少數人機關推翻多數民意的機制,比罷免法更加「邪惡」)。再相較於行使「選舉權」時的簡單明瞭,人民要行使憲法賦予之「罷免權」竟困難重重,實為一大諷刺。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: 標楷體; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">三、</span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">重新檢視「鳥籠」背後的邪惡</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(一)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">信賴政府的迷思</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">對於如此不合理的「鳥籠」罷免法,支持修改的聲音,一直都無法佔據人民心中的重要地位。或許是因為中華民國政府以「法治」之名,行管制(或謂殖民統治)之實,且長期以來大多數人民本身選擇相信「政府」,相信「法律」的形式,相信公務員的執法,而不去探究所謂「惡法」背後的惡靈。因此,統治者往往一句「惡法亦法」,即可便宜行事。漢娜鄂蘭口中所謂「平庸的邪惡」,竟在台灣社會獲得完美詮釋。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(二)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">政府不能限制人民權利嗎?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">或有反對意見者認為,憲法賦予人民參政權,並不是無邊無際,對於罷免權的限制不但並無不當,對於罷免權的程序性規定,反而可以避免政局的動盪不安?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(三)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">憲法精神在於限制政府權力,而非人民權利</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 48.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">對於上開反對意見,簡單回答如下:憲法以法律保留原則限制人民基本權利,並不是以限制人民權利為主要考量。相反地,限制政府權力才符合憲法的精神。因為開放參政權至一般人民手中的民主政治,從來不是天經地義。因此,法律的制定仍係以能夠讓人民享有基本權利為依歸,而不是以限制人民行使基本權利為其宗旨,防止政府不當擴張加諸人民基本權之限制。</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd; text-indent: -24.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: 標楷體; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">四、</span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">代結論</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">-</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">我對國家的新想像,仍須寄望於台灣人民的覺醒</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 24.0pt; mso-para-margin-left: 0gd;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">「鳥籠」罷免法目前仍無解套的跡象,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">318</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">太陽花學運之後,更修改「公職人員選舉罷免法」第</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">80</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">條及第</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: 標楷體;">83</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">條,讓連署的格式更加嚴格。面對擁有民主形式正當性的國民黨政府,卻以黨意領導立法,造成立法無法監督行政的憲政危機,呼喚台灣人民覺醒</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">-</span><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">台灣人守護自己的台灣,是守護國家的最後一道防線。</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 標楷體; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(本文作者為執業律師)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-54063669155723752382014-07-30T11:22:00.000+08:002015-09-02T18:42:42.614+08:00新憲法論壇:7/1-8/31 公投之困境-以公民提案類型為中心<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>公投之困境-以公民提案類型為中心 / 陳瑋珊</b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">我國憲法第17條規定:「人民有選舉、罷免、創制及複決之權。」,又第136條規定:「創制、複決兩權之行使,以法律定之。」,我國於2003年通過施行之公民投票法(以下簡稱公投法),即屬上開憲法條文之具體展現。</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">公投法之立法目的乃在於實踐憲法保障人民「創制、複決」基本權的行使,藉由公民投票法規定,使人民得依循該法律規範之程序,參與公民投票。並透過公投機制,落實「主權在民」此一憲法基本原則。</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">惟我國現行之公投制度,門檻甚高,本文遂以公民提案類型為中心討論以下問題,試從以下門檻討論,為何公投法通過逾十年光陰,卻未曾有任何提案通過或於連署階段即胎死腹中,以下分析之: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">一、<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>提案及連署門檻過高</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">現行公投法規定,提案連署門檻需達最近一次總統、副總統選舉之選舉人總數千分之五以上,以2012年總統大選為基準,當年度有投票權人數約莫1800萬,如欲提案,人數至少需9萬人以上;第一階段提案連署待公投審議委員會審核完成後,二階段連署則需達最近一次總統、副總統選舉之選舉人總數百分之五以上,亦即需90萬人連署。</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">由於二階段連署門檻過高,以2010年重啟美牛談判公投為例,該公投議題連署雖然第一階段迅速累積到11萬份連署書,惟於第二階段連署由於未達當年86萬份連署而胎死腹中。</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">二、需經公投審議委員會審查</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">公民投票法第2條第2項規定:「公民投票事項之認定,由公民投票審議委員會為之。」</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">而公審會之主要職權在於判定公投提案內容是否屬於全國性公投事項以及處理重複提案問題,但是在觀察過去公投審議案件,以ECFA公投案為例,公審會四次駁回過程中,不僅創立出法未明文之「程序性公投」與「實質性公投」概念,除此之外,更進一步要求重大政策複決權之行使結果必需要能「改變政府現行政策」,如未能改變,則將駁回該公投提案。然而,是否能夠改變政府決策,並非公審會能事先所預測,蓋,不論是改變政策之公投命題或維持政府現行政策之公投案,不論為何種命題,其最後通過或不通過所造成後續影響政府之效應,當非公審會得事先預測,如公審會逕以未能改變政府現行政策駁回提案,該駁回理由完全繫諸於公審會主觀之臆測,無異於對人民複決權行使之剝奪。 </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">三、投票門檻過高</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">公投法第30條規定:「(第 2 項)公民投票案投票結果,投票人數達全國、直轄市、縣 (市) 投票權人總數二分之一以上,且有效投票數超過二分之一同意者,即為通過。(第 2 項)投票人數不足前項規定數額或未有有效投票數超過二分之一同意者,均為否決。」</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">我國公投設計採行「投票率過半」、「有效同意票過半」雙重門檻機制,其一如未通過,即屬「否決」,有論者戲稱為「鳥籠公投」。</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">今天我們假設我國有權投票人口共計100人計算,按公投法之規定,今天只要有51人參與投票,26人投下贊成票,即可通過公投案;然若僅有49人參與投票,縱49人全數投下贊成票,也無法通過公投。此種雙重門檻制度無意係蓋將「未投票者視同否決」。</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">本文在第二點中提到,公審會要求人民之複決提案,應與政府政策方向持反對立場,配合「未投票者視同否決」此種計數方式,無異使未投票者無條件視為政府政策之支持者;綜上所述,我國公投法除了使人民創制、複決之憲法權利被架空外,創制、複決其中所蘊含對代議民主、行政權政策思辨之功能,在現行公投制度下也已蕩然無存了!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">附件:<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-24uOCCVTjlbWluSlBXbTJlNm8/edit?usp=sharing">歷年全國性公民投票案決議、公告及投票情形表</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">(本文作者為國立台北教育大學文教法律研究所學生</span><span style="font-size: large;">)</span>鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0台灣自由巷23.69781 120.9605149999999916.2578895 110.6333665 31.1377305 131.28766349999998tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-77615555979687133482014-03-14T12:24:00.000+08:002015-09-01T11:03:11.462+08:00新憲法論壇:3/1-4/30 台灣是憲法國家嗎?<span style="font-size: large;">台灣的月曆,每年12月25日寫著「行憲紀念日」已經超過半世紀,而且,形式上,也有一部所謂的「中華民國憲法」,所以,好像台灣應該是一個憲法國家。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">如果,成為憲法國家的條件,在於有沒有一部憲法,那麼,被世界公認是憲法母國的英國,豈不變成「非憲法國家」?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">同理,許多被公認專制獨裁的國家,例如中國、北韓,都有一部冠冕堂皇的憲法,為什麼各國的憲法學界,都認為中國、北韓是「非憲法國家」?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">
法國大革命之後,1793年的人權宣言就明確指出,一個國家即使有憲法體制,但如果不能實施權力分立,無法確保人權,就是一個沒有憲法的國家。</span></h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">因此,英國從未制定過一部憲法典,但英國早自1215年大憲章、1689年權利法案等,逐漸發展建立的憲政制度,卻是世界各民主憲政國家必然或多或少仿效的對象。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">簡言之,從國民主權、權力分立、人權保障等基本原理來檢視,可以很清楚說明,為什麼「憲法國家不一定有憲法」?例如英國就是「沒有憲法的憲法國家」。又為什麼「有憲法不一定是憲法國家」?例如中國、北韓等都有憲法,卻不是憲法國家。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">同樣的,戰前的日本,雖然也有一部憲法(大日本帝國憲法,又稱明治憲法),卻不能說是一個憲法國家。直到戰後新憲法(日本國憲法,又稱昭和憲法),無論是內容規定,還是實際運作,都符合國民主權、權力分立、人權保障等基本原理,才真正成為一個憲法國家。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">因為,戰前的日本,雖然有人民選舉產生的國會(眾議院),也有權力分立的政府組織形式,但是,國民並未掌握國家主權。人權保障條文又都附帶「在法律保障範圍內」(又稱「法律保留」),人權保障形同來自統治者的施恩才能享有。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">此外,儘管日本的司法權,在戰前就建立了司法獨立的傳統,但是,只能依法(律)審判,司法權也沒有「違憲審查權」,來達到對立法權、行政權進行制衡監督的憲政效果。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">簡言之,現代立憲主義(又稱憲政主義)的憲法內容,必須以國民主權、權力分立為基礎,以追求保障人權為目的,才具備合法性、正當性。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">但是,在台灣,最大的悲哀是,絕大多數的人民並不了解憲法的意義。戒嚴時期,國民黨為了所謂的「法統」,讓學校只教「憲法是國家的根本大法」。或者,再聊備一格的說「憲法是人民權利的保障書」。</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">
但是,人民有什麼權利?國家該如何透過權力分立與制衡,確保國民主權與落實基本人權?不只談論是禁忌,連抗議政府侵犯人權,就是被打、被關、被殺,更遑論其他。</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />即使經過解嚴,走過自由化、民主化,權力分立與制衡仍然無法實現。扭曲的選舉制度,造成立法權違反民主;行政權經常違反行政中立與依法行政;司法權無法獨立,甚至未依法審判(如林益世案);直接落實國民主權的公投法更是遭到嚴重扭曲,</span><span style="font-size: large;">思想自由、言論自由、集會自由、財產權、人身自由、創制複決等憲法條文,都沒有真正實現,甚至遭到國家侵害時,也沒有辦法透過真正獨立的司法權,進行違憲審查進行排除與救濟。</span></h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">在國民主權、權力分立、人權保障等基本原理,無一符合的情況下,台灣當然不是一個憲法國家!</span>鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-67470598761870072922014-01-03T18:04:00.000+08:002015-09-01T11:03:29.128+08:00新憲法論壇:1/1-2/28 同志婚姻的合憲性<span style="font-size: large;"><b>同志婚姻是否為憲法所保障的人權?如果不是,究竟這不屬於人權的一環,還是我們可以找到合憲理由予以限制?</b></span><br />
<br />
歷來,同志婚姻在台灣的爭議,未曾中斷過;自1998年起,祁家威先生便以實際行動(以同志伴侶身分前往臺北地院公證處申請公證結婚)來衝撞體制,2011年起,陳敬學與高治瑋也因為被戶政機關拒絕信行結婚登記,而提起相關的救濟程序,一路到提出釋憲案。<br />
<br />
憲法第7條揭示,法律之前人人平等,可是並未提及「無分性向、人人平等」這樣的條件;而制定相關法律(例如民法親屬編)甚至是大法官釋憲時,都以異性家庭的「傳統倫常結構」來作為論述基礎,在此,我們可以發現,這是一個法律漏洞,亦即:存在一個現象,但法律漏未規定。在支持與反對兩方的論戰之中,可以發現這個漏洞的存在,正反雙方都針對同一條模糊的條文各自表態,挖掘支持自身論點的基礎。<br />
<br />
這是一個看起來調性偏軟,但卻是硬骨子底的憲法議題,這涉及到一個個體在國家結構之中的位置,以及他(or她)被如何看待。因此,我們來思考兩個層次的問題:<br />
<br />
現行法中並未明文禁止同性婚姻(在民法988裏頭有列舉三款婚姻當然無效之事由,其中並未舉出同性婚姻當然無效),在大法官釋憲中,亦未正面提及;目前僅係從字面衍生解釋出異性婚姻排斥同性婚姻。但是這個排斥是否具備合憲性?如是,為何未有明文禁止,而僅係類推解釋加以補充呢?而是否應該修法加以推進、明文禁止呢?<br />
<br />
此外,還有一個更重要的問題。依據憲法第23條指出,如果要限制人民的權利,則必須符合比例原則的要求,那麼,設若要立法禁止該權利,那麼,理由與依據為何?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>請諸君放下對於宗教信仰的歧見與攻擊</b></span>,試著從憲法的層級來思索此一法理議題。鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-55701318818308223912013-11-19T15:52:00.002+08:002015-09-01T11:03:44.191+08:00新憲法論壇:11/16-12/31 來談反分裂國家法<h2>
</h2>
<span style="font-family: 新細明體;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>反分裂國家法是否為中共扼殺台灣主權、<wbr></wbr>醜化台灣民主並且強化對台灣動武合法性與正當性之手段?</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 新細明體;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">2005</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">年</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">3</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">月</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">8</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">日</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">中國第十屆全國人大第三次會議公佈,並於</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">3</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">月</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><wbr></wbr>14</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">日</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">在全體人大無異議下通過,並於公佈之日起實施。</span></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">反分裂國家<wbr></wbr>法正式將中共對台動武之意圖檯面化、合法化、正當化法,<wbr></wbr>成為對台動武或所謂的「戰爭授權法」,可以說中共透過法律形式而<wbr></wbr>有對台動武的更具體、更有形、具體的「依據」。</span></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 新細明體; font-size: x-small;">另一方面,<wbr></wbr>中共制定反分裂法不僅想拘束臺灣的行為,<wbr></wbr>同時也想嚇阻各國對臺灣的支持。用制定自己國內法的行為,<wbr></wbr>便想片面改變台灣與中共各自所擁有之主權、制定台海現狀。</span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: 新細明體;"><br /></span></span></div>
鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-48664128640414187582013-09-30T16:38:00.000+08:002015-09-01T11:03:54.421+08:00新憲法論壇:10/1~11/15 您認為監察院的憲法機能及其基本價值為何?<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">你知道監察院每年耗費多少國家預算嗎?</span></b><br />
<br />
自從監察院恢復運作的這6年來,年年預算皆高達7億以上,但卻只通過200件的彈劾案,平均每案價值2,250萬元,而且至今還是看不見監察院端正官箴的效能。日前已遭司法判決有罪的基隆市長張通榮關說案,在監察院居然開了兩次會議還無法彈劾通過,甚至演變成王院長與監委互相叫囂的荒唐鬧劇,也因此再次引爆了監察院的存廢問題。<br />
<br />
按照孫中山原本的設計,你知道監察委員產生的方式與現在有什麼不同嗎?現在的五權分立,是孫中山想像的五權分立嗎?監察院從什麼時候開始停止運作?原因何在?停止運作是否造成什麼影響?<b><span style="font-size: large;">你認為,監察院還有存在的憲法價值嗎?</span></b>鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150315881428689972.post-91373756882464558112013-08-30T23:56:00.001+08:002015-09-01T11:04:07.425+08:00新憲法論壇:8/30~9/30 「談論」「台獨」,違憲否?<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">主張台灣獨立「違憲」嗎?</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><br /></span></b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">推動台灣獨立「違憲」嗎?</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><br /></span></b></span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>中華民國憲法違憲嗎?</b></span></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">二十六年前的今天,也就是一九八七年八月三十日,「<wbr></wbr>台灣政治受難者聯誼總會」的成立大會通過章程條文「<wbr></wbr>台灣應該獨立」,這是在團體組織章程中公開主張台灣獨立第一例。<wbr></wbr>提出條文的許曹德、蔡有全,也因此成為國民黨政府的叛亂犯。</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">二十六年後的今天,台灣人民基本上獲得了言論自由保障,<wbr></wbr>但提出推翻或結束中華民國憲政體制的主張,甚至「著手實施」,<wbr></wbr>是否違憲呢?如果只能主張而不能著手實施,<wbr></wbr>這種主張又算甚麼主張呢?</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">進一步,也有人認為,<wbr></wbr>中華民國憲法並未經過台灣人民的同意而施行,<wbr></wbr>而且台灣人民的制憲權一直被剝奪,<wbr></wbr>因此這套憲法違背了憲政民主原理,中華民國憲法才是「違憲」的!</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">與此相反,也有人認為,<wbr></wbr>台灣人民參與了中華民國憲法所規定的各種選舉,<wbr></wbr>甚至進行多達七次的修憲,所以,<wbr></wbr>中華民國憲法已經由這些程序而被合法化了!</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">到底,台灣人民主張或推動台灣獨立是違憲的嗎?<wbr></wbr>中華民國憲法在台灣合不合法?</span></div>
鄭南榕基金會‧紀念館http://www.blogger.com/profile/03319894806534433863noreply@blogger.com0