| Abstract: | 憲法第8條第1項，明文「人民的身體自由，應予保障」，國家干預人民身體之自由，必須以「正當法律程序」為之，尤其「法官介入」審查的要求。
然本文以釋字第690號解釋為出發，發現何以有些拘束非刑事被告，在正當法律程序要求法官保留(釋字第166號解釋、釋字第251號解釋、釋字第588號解釋)，而有些卻又不要求法官保留(釋字第690號解釋、釋字第708號解釋、釋字第710號解釋)，但釋字第708號解釋及釋字第710號解釋，仍要求其他法官介入，而賦予即時司法救濟。因此，拘束非刑事被告人身自由，那些類型應為法官保留，那些不須法官保留，但須為法官介入，在正當法律程序要求的法官介入，無一致脈絡及客觀標準可循，對保障非刑事被告人身自由將為不利。
故而，本文以法官介入審查為必要之前提，並以「即時」「有效」法官介入-重新建構保障非刑事被告人身自由之正當法律程序。從「即時」法官介入具體化，將法官介入區分「事前法官保留」及「即時司法救濟」的類型，就「有效」法官介入具體化，如何以「送達通知」、「直接審理」、「閱卷權」、「答辯權利」、「提出證據」、「傳訊與詰問證人」、「選任辯護人權利」，確保法官獲致不偏不倚心證，而拘束人身自由正確裁判。
最後，以是否符合即時法官介入及有效法官介入的要求，對現行若干拘束非刑事被告人身自由法律提出改革及建議。
The Article 8 of the Constitution expressly states that "personal freedom shall be guaranteed to the people" and that hindrance in such by the state authority must be based on "legitimate legal procedure", especially in the request of review with "judicial intervention".
However, this article began with Judicial Interpretation No. 690 and discovered that some of the non-criminal defendants were bound to require the judge retains in due process of law (as explained in Judicial Interpretation No. 166, 251 and 588), while others did not request the judge retains (as seen in No. 690, 708 and 710), even though in Judicial Interpretation No. 708 and 710, other judges were asked to intervene to grant immediate judicial relief. Therefore, in case of restraining personal freedom of a non-criminal defendant, judges were still involved regardless of the type of requiring the judge retains or not, that even for case of judicial intervention in the due process of legal proceeding, there was no consistent context and objective criteria to follow to guarantee non-criminal protection, posing an unfavorable situation to personal freedom.
As a result, the article, with a preceding context of requiring judge's involvement to provide an "immediate" and "effective" measure of interventive review, would attempt to reconstruct a righteous due process of protection for non-criminal defendant's personal freedom. By substantiating the definition of "immediate" judicial intervention, judge's involvement was further classified as "ex-ante judge retains", "ex-post facto judge retains" and "immediate judicial relief" to effectively clarify “notification service", "direct trial", "right of inspection", "right of reply", "proposition of evidence", "subpoena and examination of witnesses" and "retention of defense attorney", to ensure that judges were unbiased to perform their duty with guarantee of personal freedom to the accused.
Finally, with regard to the requirements of immediate and effective judicial intervention, reforms and recommendations would be proposed on the current law governing the personal freedom of certain non-criminal defendants. |
