| 摘要: | 創制複決權為人民之基本權利，在公民投票案之程序中，人民有不受扭曲投票之自由，得透過暫時權利保護制度加以保障權利。在公民投票前，可能透過不同方式侵害人民權利，本文依據行政法院裁定之案例，區分三階段為公投提案審查、公投連署審查及公投案成立至投票前階段，分別評析裁定與探討暫時權利保護之適用。
在公投提案審查階段，大法官解釋第645號明白說明，創制複決權為人民之基本權利，保障人民不受扭曲的投票自由;此項自由亦為《公民與政治權利國際公約》第25號一般性意見書所強調。公民投票提案之主文與理由，經中央選舉委員會審查通過後，人民若認為有扭曲投票意志之自由，得向行政法院聲請暫時權利保護。行政法院應保護人民公投提案權，但也須尊重中選會的裁量權與判斷餘地。在公投連署審查階段，提案人之領銜人無主動再次遞交連署書之權利，亦無請求公投綁大選之權利，不符合聲請暫時權利保護。在公投案成立至投票前階段，政府機關為確保人民投票意志不受扭曲，負有持續提供正確公投資訊之憲法義務，並應說明公民投票案通過與不通過之法律效果。行政法院不應透過停止執行之裁定，禁止中選會刊登政府機關補充意見書，履行憲法義務。
綜上所述，暫時權利保護得做為即時且有效之權利救濟制度，而其前提為主觀權利，基本權利為主觀權利，創制、複決權為主觀權利，保障人民不受扭曲的投票自由。人民聲請暫時權利保護後，行政法院審查中央選舉委員會之審議結論時，應僅做有限性審查，尊重獨立機關判斷餘地，而行政法院若審查政府機關意見書時，亦應僅做有限性審查，尊重政府機關基於統治行為所做出之意見書，保障行政權不受司法權之侵害。
;The rights of initiative and referendum are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In the procedure prior to the referendum, the freedom to vote without interference could be protected by preliminary relief proceedings. Before the referendum, people’s rights may be infringed in different ways. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is to discuss and analyze the applicability of preliminary relief proceedings based on the cases the Administrative Court made, which distinguishes into three phases: the review of the referendum proposal, the review of the referendum signature, and the pre-referendum.
In the phase of reviewing the referendum proposal, the constitutional court illustrates clearly in No. 645 that the rights of initiative and referendum are fundamental rights that protect people’s freedom to vote without interference, which is also emphasized in the General Comment No. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After the main text and reasons have been scrutinized and approved by the Central Election Commission, people have the right to apply for preliminary relief proceedings in the Administrative Court if people believe that there is interference with their freedom to vote. The Administrative Court should protect people’s right of raising referendum proposals but has to respect CEC’s discretionary power and margin of appreciation. In the phase of reviewing the referendum signature, the leader of the proposer doesn’t have the right to submit a petition again, nor does the person have the right to request the referendum held together with the general election. Besides, the person doesn’t conform to applying for the preliminary relief proceedings. In the phase of pre-referendum, the government has the constitutional obligation to continuously provide correct referendum information in order to ensure that people′s will to vote is not interfered. Moreover, the government should explain the legal effect of passing or not passing the referendum. The Administrative Court should not prohibit CEC from publishing supplementary submissions from government agencies through the ruling of suspension of execution, which is the way that CEC fulfills the Constitutional obligation.
In summary, preliminary relief proceedings can be an immediate and effective rights and remedies system, which is premised on subjective rights, meaning fundamental rights, the rights of initiative and referendum. This protects people’s freedom to vote without interference. After people apply for preliminary relief proceedings, the Administrative Court shall only do a limited review and respect the margin of appreciation of the independent agencies when reviewing CEC’s deliberation conclusions. And the Administrative Court shall also only do a limited review of the opinions of government agencies, respecting the opinions made by the government based on the governance and ensuring that executive power is not infringed upon by judicial power. |
