法律明確性原則乃法治國原則下之產物，其主要功能在於「預先告知」與「避免執法恣意」。自從釋字第432號確立法律明確性原則之地位以來，可理解性、可預見性及可司法審查性三項審查標準對於後續釋字影響極深，惟在這套審查標準下，最終是否能真正落實「保障人權」之理念，不無疑問。本文以歷年來與法律明確性原則相關之釋憲實務為分析，藉此探討法律明確性原則審查標準之必要性。面對多號釋字審查標準之差異、審查標準適用情況不一、形式援引等弊病，本文認為應將審查重點置於可預見性。此外，立法者無論是在立法或修法階段，都必須善盡其立法責任，不該以不確定法律概念、概括條款或指示性規定作為立法怠惰之藉口；司法者也必須扮演公正之監督者，避免因法律明確性原則空洞化，而動搖到法治國原則之精神。;The principle of clarity and definiteness of law (Rechtsbestimmtheitprinzip) is the product of the principle of rule of law, its main functions are “advance notice” and “avoiding arbitrary enforcement”. Since J.Y. Interpretation No. 432 established the status of the principle of clarity and definiteness of law, comprehensibility, predictability and justiciability these three standards of review had had a deep effect upon subsequent interpretations. But it doubts about whether the concept of “protection of human rights”can be practiced by these standards of review. This paper discusses the necessity of standards of review about that principle, by analyzing interpretations is in connection with the principle of clarity and definiteness of law over the years. In the face of the defects of the difference in standards of review of interpretations, the divergence in standards of applicative circumstances, formal citation, in this paper opinion, the focus of review is predictability. In addition, the legislators have to do their legislative duty during legislation and amending the law, they should not to use indefinite concepts, abstract clauses, or indicative regulations as an excuse of legislative laziness. The judiciary have to be a fair supervisor, to avoid the hollow of the principle of clarity and definiteness of law, and to shake the spirit of the principle of rule of law.
