摘要: | 本文基於對台海兩岸政治現實之觀察,逐漸擴張視野而至於今日民主國家政治權力之取得前後情狀,認為刑法處罰內亂行為之立論基礎,並非有據。基於上開疑惑,本文分從歷史、政治與憲法等角度,觀察並分析內亂行為。
本文在歷史上彙整中外古今內亂之大約情狀。本文確認,內亂罪僅係人類由獨居進入群居後,由於群體有組織與領導之需求,而為確保統治者之地位,乃由統治者憑藉實力而設置。此外,統治者於藉助「神權」、「倫理」以及「法律」鞏固自身地位之外,且將「統治權威與尊嚴」之保障,亦植入內亂罪之要件中。其後,隨政治體制之變革,民主政體下,或囿於情感之糾葛,或懼於動當亂離,或堅信體制之精妙。總之,內亂行為亦非民主國家之所許。然則證諸歷史,內亂之所至,非僅國破家亡之禍害而已;新契機之附隨開展,當係不容輕忽之益處。觀史冊典籍所載,內亂之所由生,其遠因近由錯綜複雜,絕非「疵政」、「苛政」或「暴政」即可一語帶過;其天時、地利之絕巧配合固毋論矣,而人心之向背亦屬關鍵。本文歸結中外史例認為:「一、美國獨立,實乃內亂史上不可忽略者。蓋人類社會中,某一君主王朝之傾覆,無非另一君王興起代之。美國獨立係首次以共和取君主而代之者。二、中國史雖有「天命」之說,惟其虛無飄渺,難以確定。獨立宣言與將學說上之理論加以實踐,為內亂之合理性,作出確認。三、內亂之確行,必須倚賴實力。」因此,全般歷史考察之結果證實,內亂之起因,刑法無從防免;內亂行為之實力,刑法無以防範。一言以蔽之,依史證,刑法無從介入國事。
其次,就憲法自身之誕生史,本文對其亦屬內亂之結果,有所意識。基此,本文從憲法之角度,切入其產生「權力」之本質,以及此「權力」之目的。本文以為,憲法之功能在於組織政府,並維持政府與人民於力量不對等下之平衡。亦即,政府之權力在使政府發揮應有之效能,同時又應使人民受應有之保障。至於國家所有權力之目的,皆在於創造或促進人民全體之幸福。此概念下,刑法僅為實現憲法目的之工具,並非保護憲法體系之武器。直言之,所謂憲法保護之核心在於基本權,而非所謂國體或政體。從而,立於契約說所得來之國家刑罰權,一來無法推演出國家得據以防禦自身之存立;二來,國家刑罰權本身自有之權力缺陷,致使其應常持謙抑審慎之立場,不宜任意發動。此外,所謂憲法保護之核心不在於國體或政體,亦可依德國聯邦憲法法院對於人性尊嚴侵害之判斷,所創造之「客體公式」,加以點破。蓋「具體之個人被貶抑為客體、純粹之手段或是可任意替代人物」,倘即構成人性尊嚴之侵害,則妨礙或阻止人民對國家之未來作抉擇,何得再謂非置人民猶如客體。
再者,本文以內亂罪之規範目的,與該目的之達成,其間之關聯為基點,分由歷史與法律二處觀察,並輔以古今中外內亂罪之條文為對照實際效益觀察。本文認為,內亂行為無論如何加以描述定義,皆無從還原至憲法層次,而求其符合法明確原則(罪刑明確)與法正當性原則(罪刑相當)此二大基本要求。進一步而言,內亂行為之入罪,根本不能與罪刑法定原則契合。此其因由在於,內亂之處罰過早;無論陰謀或預備,除無法精確鎖定行為之態樣,復有侵犯言論、思想自由或打擊異己之虞。至若必待內亂達於著手,縱使能為犯罪類型化,惟斯時之問題在於:1.治安機關無處著力。2.刑事訴訟程序無從開啟。3.犯罪結果無從逆料。
此外,當部落、氏族乃至國家成立並發展後,人類對所謂「鞏固領導階層以維持安定繁榮」之心理狀態,乃委諸有惡害相加之刑罰制度。此其實由「黑社會」之幫規,亦得窺知端倪。事實上,社會團體之形成,彼此之間欲以「規範」互為約束,應是人同此心,心同此理。刑法對於特定行為之制裁,除必須符合群體之期待外,由於欠缺權力之實質正當性,故學說提出應刑性之要求。應刑性係刑法學上之命題,學術上已有相當研究,且提出若干判斷標準。但本文以為,應刑性之唯一支撐,自當立於民主原則。蓋現行學說所提出之標準,僅得作為國家刑罰權過度時予以節制之事由;至於實務動輒放任於立法之自由形成,亦有寬縱。二者之說理,均稍嫌不足。本文以為,感受純存乎於人之內心,共同感受則為群體意識之匯聚。共同感受之匯集形成,演進為共同需求者,政府自宜加以對應;在共同感受涉及危懼者,政府之回應即入罪處罰。此即將應刑之判斷,繫諸於社會意識之變動,即民主原則作為國家刑罰權之唯一依據。
本文以為,危懼共感固然反應國家主權者之意志,然問題卻於立法者回應之時發生扭曲。蓋人民之共同感受或需求,透過立法者之安排或建置,本來應有其適切之法律規範產生。但受制於立法者本身之學能不足,或出於政黨捭闔縱橫之分贓,或由於利益團體之遊說關說,又或沉浸於輿論媒體之渲染。立法之結果,竟與人民之共同感受,有所出入。此種不足以回應人民需求之法律,縱有使全民猶如服用安心丸一般之暫時效果,惟並非長久之計。此時自有修法之必要。
本文對現今自命民主法治之各國,均毫無例外將內亂行為董之以刑,認為可疑。易言之,古時之人所遺「危懼共感」固似有其緣由。惟物換星移下,對內亂行為之有「危懼共感」,恐僅存於政府當局。按藉暴動為內亂,人民對之有危懼共感,且已深植絕大多數國民之心,此本文並不爭執。本文之論其應除罪,良以,內亂行為之有其本質性問題,已非刑法所能介入。此可見諸我國刑法第100條與第101條。刑法第100條,經民國81年修正後,已與第101條等同。此箇中因由厥為:「刑法第100條係一虛無飄渺之條文。」按修法以前,該條並無「強暴」、「脅迫」等要件;此其時,依執政當局之好惡隨心,任何人皆有觸法之虞。至民國81年修法,該條植入「強暴」、「脅迫」後,即與第101條相同。換言之,從統治者而言,處罰內亂之時機,當宜儘早;一旦面對質疑而應縮手,其退縮即無憑無據。從而,本文主張內亂行為之除罪,應從暴動內亂罪起,此伐木自本而塞水自源。
申言之,我國刑法上暴動內亂罪,其危懼共感係真實存在;蓋動亂顛沛終非人民所願,乃至必竭力予以防免。然則,暴動之起必有因,暴動之因可以防,但暴動內亂卻終非刑罰之力所能及者。此可見諸各國之內亂罪雖無如我國之分,惟其構成要件皆欠缺行為要素而失諸空洞,僅能藉助於暴動或相似之手段行為概念。蓋無論國體、國土、國憲或政府之變動更迭,此目的既非盡人皆唾之厭之,是其關鍵在於手段或方法行為,存有危懼共感。
至於普通內亂罪,本文必須點破者在於,其危懼共感縱然真實存在,惟此僅存於政府之危懼感,非國民之危懼共感,自不能以此危懼共感認作應刑性之基礎。
應另陳明者,人民之共同感受係促成法律誕生之唯一理由,而危懼共感則為刑罰誕生之唯一理由;其後,法律之修正,亦應準此旨趣。本文以為,立法者應能精確掌握人民之真正需求而為法律之制定,避免回應民意之錯誤。蓋我國數十年來,每有藉事端或挾潮流而行立法、修法之舉,其最大之敗筆在於,人民之真正需求與感受根本係被錯誤解讀。
本文批判刑法第100條與第101條之存在必要,並提出刪除前開二罪之意見。良以,國家係人民之國家,國家之主權在於人民。因此,內亂行為之除罪,並非鬆動國家存立;刪除內亂罪最大之效益反而在於確定,天下乃天下人之天下-即國民主權。
In 1992, the amendment in the article 100 of Criminal Code of the Republic of China was based on the reason that civilians may commit the offense of the civil disturbance, just by expressing their opinions to the public. The legislators and law professionals deem the unamend article 100 has already violated the freedom of expression that is protected by the Constitution. Therefore, some legislators and law professors have offered their suggestions in amending this article. However, the valid article 100 of Criminal Code of the Republic of China has only been deleted the conspiring behaviors and relative constitutive factors, which is obviously having no substantial threat on our nation. What’s worse, this article has empowered by legislators by adding the extra constitutive factors, such as “using illegal means.” Ironically, you will find it hard to define the culprit’s behavior of changing the Constitution or overthrowing the Government, just like the article’s literal illustration.
When we try to discuss the justification of our Criminal Code, it certainly depends on civilians’ common consensus of not being able to tolerate specific commitments. The Criminal Code has the function to maintain the basic standard of public safety, which is also the social democracy required. Nonetheless, this kind of common consensus produced by the public may be virtual or abstract. As we know, our Criminal Code can not protect the advantages or benefits owned by a nation, society or even the individuals so comprehensively because of the reality. Just as I mentioned above, I think the article 100 should be deleted as soon as possible. Observing our history, the article regulated the commitments of civil disturbance has never honor the justice of the law.
In my thesis, I would try to look deep into this article step by step, and try to offer the constructive methods or new thinking directions. I think that the commitment of civil disturbance is just the false product of the combination of politics and law.
In my conclusion, my opinions about this may include:
01. The commitment of civil disturbance can’t be regulated by law.
02. The origin of the article of civil disturbance is from the past monarchy and the mistake made by our legislators.
03. It may trigger more law and politic controversies by just criminalizing the civil disturbance.
04. In reality, the article is useless. Our nation or government may be overthrown by rebels or separatists, if we stubbornly try to apply this article expecting it could defense our nation. |