| 摘要: | 2019年底中國大陸爆發嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎（COVID-19）疫情擴散全球，我國依據傳染病防治法與提審法執行防疫作為，本文探討政府行政機關採取防疫措施時，可能對人身自由所造成的限制、防疫措施是否合憲，法制面應如何處理，以完備法制規範與落實基本人權之保障，從憲法第8條第23條對於基本人權的保障，確定國家行為是否侵犯人民的基本權，進一步，確認受侵犯的權利是否屬於基本權的保護範圍，最後，必須提出國家侵犯的行為是否符合阻卻違憲事由，藉由上述思考人民基本權限制的正當性和合法性，也確保法治原則的穩定運作，司法院釋字第690號對於SARS期間限制人身自由做出合憲的解釋，但須規範強制隔離須規定合理期限、制定實施辦法、建立受隔離者即時救濟與提供合理補償的機制，COVID-19期間，隨著疫情的擴散，各項防疫措施持續推動，例如2021年鳳山某大樓住戶被集體強制旅館隔離、2022年機師入境強制隔離於防疫旅館等事件，其正當法律程序、法律明確性與比例原則，均需遵守依法行政原則，以符合憲法人身自由保障。;At the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) broke out in mainland China and spread around the world. My country implemented epidemic prevention measures by the Communicable Disease Control Act and the Habeas Corpus Act. This article studies the possible restrictions on personal freedom when administrative agencies take anti-epidemic measures, whether the anti-epidemic measures are constitutional, and how the legal aspects should be dealt with to complete legal regulations and implement the protection of basic human rights. From the protection of basic human rights in Article 8, and Article 23 of the Constitution, it is necessary to determine whether the state′s actions infringe on the people′s basic rights. Furthermore, it is necessary to confirm whether the violated rights fall within the scope of protection of basic rights. Finally, it should be asked whether the infringement by the state is consistent with the prohibition of However, it is unconstitutional. By considering the legitimacy and legality of the restrictions on people′s basic rights, we can also ensure the stable operation of the rule of law. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 690 provides a constitutional interpretation of the restrictions on personal freedom during SARS, but compulsory quarantine must be standardized, specify a reasonable period, formulate implementation methods, and establish a mechanism for immediate relief and reasonable compensation for quarantined persons. During the COVID-19 period, with the spread of the epidemic, various epidemic prevention measures continue to be promoted. For example, in 2021, residents of the Fengshan Building were collectively forced to quarantine in hotels, and in 2022, pilots entering the country were forced to be quarantined in epidemic prevention hotels. Due to legal procedures, legal clarity, and the principles of proportionality must abide by the administrative principles of law and comply with the constitutional freedom guaranteed. |
