解釋字號：釋字第 445 號 (J.Y.Interpretation No. 445)
解釋日期：民國 87年1月23日 (Date: 1998/1/23)
解釋爭點：集會遊行法相關規定違憲？
Issue: Are the relevant provisions of the Assembly and Parade Act unconstitutional?
解釋文 (Holding)：
憲法第十四條規定人民有集會之自由，此與憲法第十一條規定之言論、講學、著作及出版之自由，同屬表現自由之範疇，為實施民主政治最重要的基本人權。國家為保障人民之集會自由，應提供適當集會場所，並保護集會、遊行之安全，使其得以順利進行。以法律限制集會、遊行之權利，必須符合明確性原則與憲法第二十三條之規定。
Article 14 of the Constitution provides that the people have the freedom of assembly. Like Article 11 of the Constitution, which provides for the freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication, it is also a kind of freedom of expression that is the most important fundamental human right in practicing democracy. In order to guarantee the people’s freedom of assembly, the nation shall provide appropriate places for, and ensure the safety and regular process of, assemblies and parades. In restricting the rights of assembly and parade by law, the principle of clarity and definiteness of law and the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution must be complied with.
集會遊行法第八條第一項規定室外集會、遊行除同條項但書所定各款情形外，應向主管機關申請許可。同法第十一條則規定申請室外集會、遊行除有同條所列情形之一者外，應予許可。其中有關時間、地點及方式等未涉及集會、遊行之目的或內容之事項，為維持社會秩序及增進公共利益所必要，屬立法自由形成之範圍，於表現自由之訴求不致有所侵害，與憲法保障集會自由之意旨尚無牴觸。
Article 8-I of the Assembly and Parade Act provides that, unless any of the situations otherwise provided in the proviso of the same paragraph exists, anyone who wants to hold an outdoor assembly or a parade shall apply for permission from the competent authority. Article 11 of said Act provides that, unless any of the situations listed in the same article exists, the application for an outdoor assembly or a parade shall be approved. To the extent that those items in regard to time, place, and manner are irrelevant to the purposes or contents of the assembly or parade, and that they are necessary to the maintenance of social order and the advancement of public welfare, they should fall within the scope of legislative discretion and will not result in any infringement of the purpose of freedom of expression. Therefore, the constitutional intent of protecting the freedom of assembly is not violated.
集會遊行法第十一條第一款規定違反同法第四條規定者，為不予許可之要件，乃對「主張共產主義或分裂國土」之言論，使主管機關於許可集會、遊行以前，得就人民政治上之言論而為審查，與憲法保障表現自由之意旨有違；同條第二款規定：「有事實足認為有危害國家安全、社會秩序或公共利益之虞者」，第三款規定：「有危害生命、身體、自由或對財物造成重大損壞之虞者」，有欠具體明確，對於在舉行集會、遊行以前，尚無明顯而立即危險之事實狀態，僅憑將來有發生之可能，即由主管機關以此作為集會、遊行准否之依據部分，與憲法保障集會自由之意旨不符，均應自本解釋公布之日起失其效力。
Article 11 (i) of the Assembly and Parade Act, which provides that any violation of Article 4 of the said Act is one of the essential conditions for which the competent authority may deny the application for an outdoor assembly, prohibits? any speech that “advocates communism or secession of territory.” The said provision, which allows the competent authority to censor the contents of a political speech prior to the approval of an assembly or a parade, is inconsistent with the intention of protecting the freedom of expression under the Constitution. Subparagraph 2 of said article, providing that “There are facts showing the likelihood that national security, social order or public welfare will be jeopardized,” and Subparagraph 3 thereof, providing that “There is the likelihood that public safety or freedom will be jeopardized, or there will be serious damage to property,” are neither specific nor clear enough. The mere basis on which the competent authority may either approve or deny an application for an assembly or a parade is the future possibility of occurrence instead of a factual showing of clear and present danger. As such, the said provisions are inconsistent with the constitutional intention of protecting the freedom of assembly, and thus shall become null and void from the date of this Interpretation.
集會遊行法第六條規定集會遊行之禁制區，係為保護國家重要機關與軍事設施之安全、維持對外交通之暢通；同法第十條規定限制集會、遊行之負責人、其代理人或糾察員之資格；第十一條第四款規定同一時間、處所、路線已有他人申請並經許可者，為不許可集會、遊行之要件；第五款規定未經依法設立或經撤銷許可或命令解散之團體，以該團體名義申請者得不許可集會、遊行；第六款規定申請不合第九條有關責令申請人提出申請書填具之各事項者為不許可之要件，係為確保集會、遊行活動之和平進行，避免影響民眾之生活安寧，均屬防止妨礙他人自由、維持社會秩序或增進公共利益所必要，與憲法第二十三條規定並無牴觸。惟集會遊行法第九條第一項但書規定：「因天然災變或其他不可預見之重大事故而有正當理由者，得於二日前提出申請。」對此偶發性集會、遊行，不及於二日前申請者不予許可，與憲法保障人民集會自由之意旨有違，亟待檢討改進。
Article 6 of the Assembly and Parade Act, which stipulates a restricted area for assembly and parade, is intended to protect the security of government leaders and military facilities, and to maintain the unobstructed flow of traffic and communications. Article 10 of said Act stipulates the qualifications for the person in charge of the assembly or parade, his or her agent or picket. Article 11(iv) thereof provides that an application for an assembly or a parade shall be denied if the same time, place, and route have been applied for by another and been approved. Article 11(v) thereof provides that the application for an assembly or a parade by a group may be denied if such group is not established according to the law, or permission for its establishment has been withdrawn, or it has been ordered to dissolve. Article 11(vi) thereof provides that the application may not be approved if the application does not conform to Article 9, which, among other things, requires the applicant to submit a completely filled-out application form. All of the foregoing provisions are meant to ensure a peaceful assembly or parade and to prevent any disturbance of the public quiet, which are necessary to either prevent infringement upon the freedom of other people, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare, and thus are not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, the proviso of Article 9-I of the said Act reads, “An application may be submitted two days (prior to an assembly or parade) where there is any justifiable reason because of any natural disaster or any other unforeseeable major accident.” Denying an application for an incidental assembly or parade that is not filed two days prior to such assembly or parade is in violation of the constitutional intention of protecting the people’s freedom of assembly and thus requires prompt and speedy review and revision.
集會遊行法第二十九條對於不遵從解散及制止命令之首謀者科以刑責，為立法自由形成範圍，與憲法第二十三條之規定尚無牴觸。
Article 29 of the Assembly and Parade Act, which imposes criminal liability on a chief violator who disobeys a dispersal and restraining order, is within the scope of legislative discretion and, as such, is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.
轉錄自：司法院大法官
留言列表
