論傳染病防治法第48條「隔離」之正當法律程序

Abstract

2003年發生的嚴重急性呼吸道症候群（severe acute respiratory syndrome，SARS）傳染病疫情，造成臺北市立和平醫院關閉並「隔離」員工及住院病人，上千人被拘束人身自由於院內無法離開，引發憲法第8條第一項「正當法律程序」是否要求隔離措施經法院審查決定之爭議。司法院釋字第690號解釋認為得由行政機關判斷，但大法官過去曾多次宣示須經法院審查決定是否拘束人身自由，本件解釋結論為何不同？本文以歷史研究釐清爭議問題、文獻分析歸納過去憲法解釋後，再以美國州緊急衛生權力模範法（Model State Emergency Health Powers Act）及我國其他拘束人身自由法律為借鏡，從基本權利及國家權力特性進行比較法觀察後，認為所有拘束人身自由措施都須經法院審查決定、保障當事人參與及防禦權，應乃憲法第8條第一項「正當法律程序」不可逾越的絕對價值底線，不容許有任何例外。現行傳染病防治法第48條第一項規定及司法院釋字第690號解釋見解，均不符合此要求，爰考量憲法保障人身自由意旨及傳染病防治實務需求，並於結論擬定建議修正條文。

The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in Taiwan caused much legal constoversy. More than a thousand employees and inpatients of the Heping Hospital of Taipei City were quarantined in the hospital buildings, igniting the debate regarding the procedural due process of Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution for the constraint of personal liberty. The Judicial Yuan (J.Y.) Interpretation No. 690 provided that mere executive quarantine orders are sufficiently constitutional. However, it seems to depart from past decisions that insisted prior judicial approval is necessary for the protection from arbitrary detention. Through historical research for issue clarification, literature review of past J.Y. Interpretions, and comparison with the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act of the U.S. and various statutes in Taiwan, I conclude that the State must obtain judicial approval whenever it seeks to constrain personal liberty. It is an absolute prodedural due process safeguard by Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution based of the invaluability of this important fundamental right and the separation of powers. Current quarantine provisions under the Communicable Disease Control Act and J.Y. Interpretation No. 690 both fail to follow this standard and are thus advised to be amended according to my proposal.