2017年4月25日 星期二

Anti-reform protesters a far cry from Sunflowers

Huang Di-ying  黃帝穎
(Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and director of Taiwan Forever Association)
(作者為律師、永社理事)

Translated by Perry Svensson

TAIPEI TIMES / Editorials 2017.04.25
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/04/25/2003669360

After the legislature on Wednesday decided to initiate the first review of the draft pension reform act, groups opposing the reform proposals began a violent protest outside the legislature. They even assaulted county commissioners, mayors and legislators entering the building and some of the protesters wondered what was wrong with that, saying: “If the Sunflower movement protesters could do it, why can’t we?”

In a play on words alluding to the Sunflower movement, these protesters are now being called the “No-money-to-spend movement.”

The guiding principle for the movement opposing pension reforms is to protect their own vested interests, while the Sunflower movement was fighting for a loftier reason — the public interest against the opaque handling of cross-strait service trade agreement negotiations.

There is no comparing the two, so the discussion should stick to whether the anti-reform protesters’ violent behavior is in line with a court decision that civil disobedience could offset illegal behavior.

The key factor that caused the Taipei District Court to arrive at a not-guilty verdict in the case against Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) and the other Sunflower movement protesters for occupying the main chamber of the Legislative Yuan was that they met seven requirements of civil disobedience which offset any legal violations.

Applying these seven factors to the behavior of the anti-reform protesters who assaulted legislators and other officials makes it clear that they do not meet the requirements.

So, legally speaking, they cannot refer to the Sunflower movement verdict.

The fourth of the seven conditions for civil disobedience requires “open and non-violent behavior,” meaning that then-premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) could freely visit the legislature and engage in dialogue with the protesters without being assaulted by the Sunflower students in the way that officials and legislators were beaten by the anti-reform protesters.

The court’s sixth condition for civil disobedience was that there must be “an element of necessity, in that there must be no other legally effective methods available.”

The Sunflower movement was a protest against the cross-strait service trade agreement, and had the agreement been passed, there would be no more legal recourse for the students to address the situation, which was the reason why the court came to the conclusion that the protest met the necessity requirement.

If the pension reform bill is passed, on the other hand, the protesters would still have other avenues for addressing the situation — they could file an administrative appeal and even turn to the Council of Grand Justices for a constitutional interpretation of the decision.

The protesters against pension reforms abandoned seeking redress through legal channels and instead decided to beat up legislators and officials. This is not only an ugly way of defending their vested interests, but it also lags far behind the moral vantage point of the Sunflower movement.

From a legal point of view, the protesters against reform do not meet the requirements for civil disobedience, and they are fundamentally unworthy of comparison with the Sunflower movement.

Polygraph tests always unscientific

Wu Ching-chin 吳景欽

(Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor, chair of Aletheia University’s law department and director of Taiwan Forever Association)
(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系主任、永社理事)

Translated by Lin Lee-kai

TAIPEI TIMES / Editorials 2017.04.24
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/04/24/2003669303

Group one of the National Congress on Judicial Reform preparatory committee passed a resolution that would prohibit performing polygraph tests — commonly known as lie detector tests — on the disadvantaged, in the hope of protecting the rights of disadvantaged victims and defendants in lawsuits.

However, defining “disadvantaged” is problematic. Another issue to consider is whether a polygraph test would be more or less effective depending on whether the subject belongs to a privileged or a disadvantaged group.

The premise for polygraph testing is that the truth or falsehood of one’s statement will trigger a specific, uncontrollable, physiological reaction in the subject that can be measured and then interpreted by an expert. These assumptions may appear scientific, but they have always been controversial.

The doubts about performing polygraph tests mainly focus on their objectiveness: Whether the examiner is an expert, whether the polygraph instrument meets standards, whether the environment where the test is performed is normal; all these factors will affect the results of a test, and in combination with the fact that physiological conditions differ between people, the question is how there could be a consistent benchmark for evaluation.

Other scientific tests, such as DNA tests, are not affected by such factors, and such tests can be reproduced by other experts using the same procedure, which means that their accuracy is extremely high.

In comparison, polygraph testing cannot rule out many of the variables, which means that it does not have the reproducibility required by science, and the accuracy of the process and the results cannot be examined — a fatal weakness of polygraph testing.

Although practical criminal justice in Taiwan does not rule out this method of evidence, it does require that the examiner has received expert training and is experienced, that the equipment is of good quality and operates normally and that the environment does not interfere.

In addition, polygraph tests require that the subject is in a normal physical mental state. In order to keep the respondent in this state, examiners must inform the subject of their right to refuse the test and the possible effects of polygraph testing, and they must verify that the subject’s physical and mental state is conducive to conducting a test.

That there are so many requirements reveals the concern that a lie detector test carried out under duress will violate the defendant’s right to a defense and that results are likely to be distorted.
Although judicial practice has such strict requirements around polygraph testing, in reality these requirements might not be met, because the environment is controlled by the interrogator and the subject is alone. Even if the subjects are innocent, it is doubtful whether they would be in their normal physical and mental state.

Furthermore, there is no institution to issue expert certificates to interrogators and no objective standard for procedures, which raises the question of how polygraph results should be validated.

Even worse, polygraph testing is often carried out because prosecutors think defendants are not telling the truth. This creates a risk that examiners might be prejudiced and makes it difficult to ensure that they are truly objective. Even if the defendant does not confess, these factors would make it hard not to fail the test, in effect turning it into a confession.

It often happens that even if the subject passes the polygraph test, the authorities reject the result and send the defendant to another institution for another test. This not only seriously violates the defendant’s right against self-incrimination, it also raises suspicions that defendants are given polygraph tests over and over again to frame them.

The validity of the polygraph test in criminal trials therefore has nothing to do with whether the subject belongs to an advantaged or disadvantaged group. However, it is necessary to comprehensively review whether this technology is a matter of pseudoscience disguised as science and whether it should be banned from the courtroom.

After all, the mindset that if a defendant does not confess, they will be subjected to a polygraph test — and if they do not pass the test, they are guilty — violates the presumption of innocence and is possibly a source of injustice.

2017年4月22日 星期六

【座談會】0422「檢察官不是行政官嗎?檢察官定位與檢察制度改革」座談會


敬請報名:https://goo.gl/forms/1tRnASfeLUmhEU6x2

逢司法改革國是會議密集進行之際,各界對檢察官定位「究竟為行政官或司法官?」、檢察權入憲、檢察一體與檢察官獨立性、偵查不公開原則、檢察官究責、淘汰機制等討論非常熱烈,然包括檢警關係(雙偵查主體?) 、檢察官進場與退場機制等重要議題,司法改革國是會議卻反而較少觸及。為此,永社特別邀請專家學者,舉辦座談會,盼能提出檢察制度改善之建言,供司法改革國是會議參考。

時間:04/22(六) 09:30-11:45
地點:台大校友會館三樓 3A會議室
主辦單位:永社、法操FOLLAW

主持人:陳傳岳 / 律師、永社名譽理事長

與談人:范文清 / 東吳大學法律學系副教授
    高宏銘 / 律師、法操共同創辦人、曾任檢察官
    鄭文龍 / 律師、永社理事
    吳景欽 / 真理大學法律系副教授兼系所主任
    (邀請中)

時間分配:
 主持人10min
 與談人15min
 綜合討論 45min

敬請報名:https://goo.gl/forms/1tRnASfeLUmhEU6x2
活動頁面:https://www.facebook.com/events/205705243250210/

2017年4月20日 星期四

測謊有效性也分強勢弱勢嗎

吳景欽(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系所主任、永社理事)

蘋果日報/論壇 2017.04.20
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20170420/37624294/

司改國是會議第一分組決議,未來將禁止對弱勢者進行測謊,期能有效保障弱勢被害人與被告於訴訟上的權益,只是弱勢者如何界定,卻肯定是個問題。更值得注意的是,測謊的有效性,難道會因受測者是強勢、是弱勢,致有所差別?

測謊有效性的前提,乃基於人所言真假能夠引發特定的生理反應,且在個人無法自我控制下,這些反應能被儀器所測知,並為專家所判讀。惟此前提看似科學,卻一直存有爭議。

以對被告測謊的質疑,首來自於其是否有客觀性,如施測者的專業性與否、儀器運作是否合於標準、施測環境是否正常等等,皆會影響受測的結果,又在每個人的生理狀況皆不同下,如何能有一致的判定基準?如與其他科學鑑識,如DNA相較,由於此種鑑定不具有上述的干擾因素,也可由其他專家依相同程序為檢視,準確性極高。相對而言,測謊無法排除諸多干擾因素,致不具有科學所強調的再現性,就無法檢視過程與結果的正確性,致成為測謊鑑定的致命傷。 

我國刑事司法實務雖不排除此種證據方法,卻要求施測者須受有良好的專業訓練與經驗、施測機器品質良好且運作正常與施測環境必須排除干擾外,更得在受測者身心及意識正常的情況,才得為測謊。而為使相對人保持此狀態,施測者既應告知得拒絕的權利與測謊所可能帶來的影響,更得先檢視身心狀態是否適於受測。凡此要求,正暴露出在受迫情況所為的測謊,不僅侵害被告的防禦權,其取得的結果必也失真。 

違背無罪推定原則

惟就算司法實務對測謊鑑定有如此嚴格要求,卻未必能獲得實踐,因在施測空間為偵訊者所掌控,而受測者處於孤立下,即便是無辜者,其身心果能保持正常?甚且目前國內,並無對測謊者專業認證的機構,亦無任何客觀的標準程序,又何能檢驗測謊結果的有效性?

更糟的是,現行測謊,往往是在檢方認為被告不說真話或不認罪時為之,施測者即可能存有先入為主的偏見,致難保證其中立性。若被告仍不認罪,即難逃測謊未過的宿命,致等同是變相的自白。甚而於受測者已通過測謊之場合,但執法者仍不相信,致再送其他機關為施測,亦所在多有,既嚴重侵害被告的不自證己罪權,也讓人懷疑,一再送測謊,是否只為入人於罪?

也因此,關於測謊於刑事審判的有效性,實與受測者是強、是弱無關,而是該全面檢視,這種鑑定技術,是否僅是披著科學外衣的偽科學,致應被屏除於法院之外。畢竟,不認罪送測謊、測謊未過等同有罪的思考邏輯,絕對與刑事司法的無罪推定原則相違背,更可能成為冤罪的根源。

回答「太陽花可以,為什麼我們不行?」

黃帝穎(作者為律師、永社理事)

自由時報/自由廣場 2017.04.20
http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1095838

立法院昨進行年金改革法案初審,反年改團體在外進行激烈抗爭,甚至暴力毆打縣市首長及多名立委,部分反年改人士竟稱「太陽花可以,為什麼我們不行?」因此遭網友諷刺這是「沒錢花運動」

姑且不論反年改的「沒錢花運動」,活動宗旨只是為維護個人「既得利益」,與太陽花反黑箱服貿的憲政高度「公益目的」,根本無法比擬。僅論反年改的暴力行為,是否符合法院認定「公民不服從」的阻卻違法事由。

台北地方法院在太陽花學運的攻佔立法院案,判決林飛帆等人無罪的關鍵理由,是認定符合七要件的「公民不服從」,得阻卻違法。但用此七要件檢驗「沒錢花運動」的毆打立委、官員暴行,即可發現反年改群眾不符「公民不服從」,也就是說,「沒錢花」法律上根本不配引用「太陽花」。

法院的「公民不服從」七要件,其中第四要件是「須為公開及非暴力行為」,因此太陽花運動時,時任行政院長江宜樺可以到立法院旁與學生對話,且來去自如,不若「沒錢花運動」的暴力圍毆官員和立委。

「公民不服從」的第六要件是「須有必要性原則,也就是沒有其他合法、有效的替代手段可以使用」,太陽花反黑箱服貿,服貿一旦通過,學生無法透過司法手段救濟,因此符合必要性原則;相反的,「沒錢花運動」反年金改革,就算通過年改方案,既得利益者還是可以提行政爭訟,甚至是大法官釋憲來救濟。

簡單的說,反年改人士捨合法的救濟手段不用,竟跑到立法院來毆打官員和立委,這不只是「吃相難看」的維護既得利益,遠比不上太陽花學生的「護民主」情操。在法律上,「沒錢花運動」更不符合法院認定的「公民不服從」要件,根本不配比擬「太陽花運動」。

2017年4月17日 星期一

人權不准入境中國

吳景欽(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系所主任、永社理事)

自由時報/自由廣場 2017.04.16
http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1094705

國人李明哲,在中國以危害國家安全之理由被拘留,陸委會雖召開記者會,強烈要求對岸能依海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議(簡稱共打協議),通報與保障我國民之人身安全。惟就算回到共打協議,我方人員亦無法探視。

兩岸的人道探視,根據共打協議第十三章第十二點,於對方人員被限制人身自由時,既須及時通報,亦應給予家屬探視之便利。只是,共打協議並未特別針對兩岸的政治現實,而為特別的規範,致須依各自法律進行相關程序。

而就我方來說,依據刑事訴訟法第八十八條之一第四項,任何人被無拘票的緊急逮捕時,檢警須告知本人及其家屬得選任辯護人,這即是對親屬的通知義務。但同樣是無令狀的現行犯逮捕,卻無相類規定,實為嚴重的缺漏,亟待立法補強。而無論何種情況,於檢警對被告為偵訊時,基於偵查不公開,就僅能有律師在場。

至於被告受羈押之場合,依我國刑事訴訟法第一○三條第二項,必須將押票送交被告指定之親友,其並可依刑事訴訟法第一○五條第二項為接見。惟法院仍可以有湮滅證據或勾串證人之虞,禁止被告接見外人,惟此禁令,根據大法官釋字第六五四號解釋之意旨,不能包括辯護人。

故我國對人身自由受拘束的刑事被告,相關之通知與探視等規定,或有缺陷,卻已能降低與避免親屬陷入手足無措之境地。但對岸的法制,是否也有相對應的保障,卻有疑問。

依中國刑事訴訟法第八十三條第二項,公安機關拘留人犯後,須在二十四小時內通知家屬,惟若涉嫌危害國家安全之犯罪,就排除於通知範圍內。而中國刑法雖列有危害國家安全罪的專章,但其中的處罰要件,如顛覆國家政權、推翻社會主義制度或破壞國家統一等,皆屬極不明確的法律概念,即便如李明哲般,只是宣揚台灣民主及與維權人士見面,也會碰觸到對岸的敏感神經,致動輒得咎。

總之,在危害國家安全罪可恣意解釋下,對岸就算回歸兩岸共打協議之正軌,亦能依己方之法,正當且輕易排除對李明哲之妻的通知義務,更遑論有所謂探視權存在,致顯露出中國人權保障的現況。

2017年4月16日 星期日

Reopen the KMT illegal party asset sales probe

Huang Di-ying  黃帝穎
(Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and director of Taiwan Forever Association)
(作者為律師、永社理事)

Translated by Julian Clegg

TAIPEI TIMES / Editorials 2017.04.15
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/04/15/2003668741

The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID), abolished on Jan. 1, was responsible for investigating possible irregularities in the 2005 sale of three media companies previously owned by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), namely the Broadcasting Corp of China (BCC), China Television Co and Central Motion Picture Corp (CMPC) — a case that involved former president and then-KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

However, in August 2014, when the nation was focused on relief operations following a series of gas explosions in Kaohsiung, the SID closed the case, saying that it had found no evidence of illegality. At the time, people in the legal field criticized the SID and suggested that it was trying to avoid oversight by closing the case at a time of crisis.

After the SID’s abolition, the Executive Yuan’s Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee has investigated the sale of land belonging to CMPC.

The committee found that the SID did not summon Ma for questioning, even though he was the main decisionmaker in the sale.

On Tuesday, news media reported that the SID had discovered statements made by KMT figures, one of which had said: “At the time, we barely got paid.”

In view of these findings, the committee is compiling new evidence that it will hand over to the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office, possibly this week. Reopening investigations into the disposal of the three companies would help clarify suspicions about Ma’s involvement in the sale of the KMT assets and it would help restore public confidence in public prosecution.

There are other dubious points to the case besides procedural problems, such as the SID’s apparent failure to question Ma and the way it closed the case just after the Kaohsiung disaster.

KMT Central Policy Committee director Alex Tsai (蔡正元) has been embroiled in a war of words with Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯), spokeswoman for Ma’s office.

“Someone sold the party assets, but could not collect the money… Someone will go to hell if you [Hsu] mention the CMPC case again,” Tsai wrote on Facebook.

The SID’s closure of the case has clearly not removed doubts about the sale, so the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office should reopen investigations.

While investigating the BCC sale, the assets committee found that people related to the case had said that when the KMT sold its stake, “some people made higher bids than Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康),” referring to the former politician and radio commentator who eventually bought the BCC in 2006 and became its chairman.

These people accused the KMT of underpricing the BCC when it sold it to Jaw, which constitutes breach of trust, a criminal offense.

The existence of such recorded statements also means that the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office could summon people other than Tsai for questioning. Furthermore, there is likely to be more evidence in the committee’s files that could constitute a valid basis for reopening the investigation.

The SID’s involvement in the scandal — in which Ma allegedly collaborated with then-prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) to divulge classified information, conduct unwarranted phone-tapping and wage a political war against then-legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) — caused it to degrade into a political tool and lose all credibility.

That is why the public remained utterly unconvinced by the SID’s conclusions when it closed the case in the wake of the gas blasts. Now that new evidence has come to light, and in view of Tsai’s revelations, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office should take up the case where the SID left off.

2017年4月12日 星期三

三中案 應重啟偵查

黃帝穎(作者為律師,永社副理事長)

自由時報/自由廣場 2017.04.11
http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1093334

(圖片來源:自由時報/資料照,記者簡榮豐攝

二○一四年八月高雄氣爆期間,全國忙於救災,但特偵組竟趁亂簽結馬英九三中案,當時引發法界批評特偵組「心態可議」,質疑趁亂簽結是「規避監督」。

昨媒體報導,行政院黨產會追查中影土地案時,果然發現國民黨人士證稱「當時差點收不到錢」等語,且交易案主要決策者馬英九,竟從未被特偵組傳訊,因此黨產會最快本週彙整相關新事證,移送台北地檢署。確實,三中案重啟偵查,有助釐清馬英九出售黨產相關疑案,以及重建人民對檢察官的信賴。

事實上,三中案的疑點,不只有特偵組未傳喚馬英九的明顯瑕疵、趁災簽結等程序問題,國民黨政策會執行長蔡正元更在日前與馬辦發言人徐巧芯隔空交火,爆料「有人賣黨產收不到錢」、「有人會下地獄」等語,顯見三中案疑點,並未因特偵組簽結而釐清,北檢仍有重啟偵查的必要。

更明確的是,黨產會調查中廣案時,發現相關人士證稱國民黨出售中廣股權時「有人出了比趙少康更高的價錢」,直指國民黨賣中廣股權給趙少康,涉及低賣。實務上,此類公司「賤賣」事實,至少涉及刑法背信罪嫌,且不只有蔡正元,北檢可傳喚其作證,應還有更多的黨產會卷內資料,得做為三中案重啟偵查的證據基礎。

簡單地說,特偵組在淪為黃世銘與馬英九共犯洩密、濫權監聽及鬥爭王金平的「政治工具」後,已不具絲毫公信力。因此,特偵組趁高雄氣爆救災期間簽結三中案,完全無法讓社會信服,如今黨產會調查掌握新事證,且蔡正元也隔空爆料,北檢自應重啟偵查三中案。

2017年4月10日 星期一

「民團譴責監院淪國民黨打手 籲仉桂美下台」會後新聞稿




「民團譴責監院淪國民黨打手 籲仉桂美下台」
永社 記者會後新聞稿

日前馬英九提名的全體監察委員,對「不當黨產處理條例」聲請釋憲,但黨產條例與監察院「行使職權」根本無關,此外監院聲請釋憲的調查意見,不但與國民黨新聞稿主張大致相同,而且嚴重缺乏對於國際法與德國法認為公務人員財產增加「應有正當理由」的認知和理解,因此永社及北社、台灣社、台灣教授協會、台灣陪審團協會等民間團體今(04/10)早於監察院前舉辦記者會,高呼「譴責監察院,仉桂美下台」的口號,呼籲大法官逕為「不受理決議」,勿理會黨國監委的「護黨產」政治動作,也鄭重警告全民納稅血汗錢供養的監委,莫要淪為國民黨「護黨產」的免費釋憲代理人。

  永社副理事長黃帝穎律師表示,比對監察院對「黨產條例」的調查報告可以發現,監察院聲請釋憲的調查意見,與國民黨聲稱「黨產條例違憲違法」的新聞稿內容主張大致相同,堪稱是國民黨的代理人,調查報告中指摘黨產條例直接「推定有罪」,其缺乏民主素養與國際法常識之處,也與國民黨的主張幾乎相同!

  黃帝穎強調,若監委稍能理解國際法與德國法,應可知黨產條例並無「推定有罪」或「違憲」問題。依據《聯合國反貪腐公約》第二十條規定︰「…公職人員之資產顯著增加,而其本人又無法以其合法收入提出合理解釋」得定為犯罪。簡單的說,類似黨產條例「舉證責任轉換」的立法設計,顯然符合國際法例,根本沒有黨國監委誣指的違憲問題。再者,德國處理黨產之獨立委員會於一九九二年決議中也揭示,德國要求獨裁政黨對其財產取得之正當性負起舉證責任(註),監委如稍有國際觀與民主常識,應不會誤信國民黨主張的「推定有罪」,違反法治精神等「護黨產」辯詞。

  黃帝穎律師也提醒監院和司法院,依據大法官審理案件第五條第一項第一款規定,大法官受理中央機關釋憲的關鍵要件在於「行使職權」,但監院法定職權與黨產條例毫無關係,大法官自得依同條第三項「應不受理」。

  台灣陪審團協會鄭文龍律師指出,依據憲法和憲法增修條文,監察院職權應該是對行政權的監督,不應該對立法權指手畫腳,鄭文龍嚴正指責監察院針對黨產條例聲請釋憲是「不當擴權」。

  台灣北社李川信教授痛批監察院正事不辦,專門當國民黨的打手,全民都應該予以譴責,監委在過去是黨國威權的遺毒,如果現在的監委還是一樣,人民必然會唾棄!

  台灣社張葉森社長重申,國民黨的黨產來自於全民的財產,卻成為國民黨的養分,是台灣的恥辱,不黨黨產的處理是國民黨重要的一環,連馬英九都認為應該處理,因此呼籲末代監察院不要成為國民黨的打手和代理人。

  錢文南教授則批評仉桂美是「大面神」、自以為自己權力很大,但這樣的認知和做法是非常不妥當的行為,社會各界應該要一起來譴責。

  黃帝穎最後呼應李川信教授的說法,提醒監察院,三中交易案和國發院土地案都被質疑有違法之處,監察院應該要去查當時台北市長馬英九有無違失,這才是監察院的主要職責!

  永社及各民間團體在監察院前,共同喊出「譴責監察院,仉桂美下台」的口號,呼籲大法官逕為「不受理決議」,切勿理會黨國監委的「護黨產」政治動作,也鄭重警告全民納稅血汗錢供養的監委,莫要淪為國民黨「護黨產」的免費釋憲代理人。

註:可參見德國獨立委員會一九九二年七月二十一日決議,第十二屆德國國會,附件二,印刷品。

時間:04/10(一)10:00
地點:監察院大門前(忠孝東路、中山南路口)
主辦:永社、北社、台灣社
協辦:台灣陪審團協會、台灣教授協會

出席:
鄭文龍律師(台灣陪審團協會創會理事長)
黃帝穎律師(永社副理事長)
李川信教授(北社副社長)
張葉森醫師(台灣社社長)
錢文南教授

*新聞聯絡人:
永社副理事長 黃帝穎律師 02-2388-2505
永社副秘書長 洪崇晏 02-2388-3997 tfawork2014@gmail.com


【相關報導】

民報/監委對黨產條例聲請釋憲 民團:淪國民黨打手 仉桂美下台
http://www.peoplenews.tw/news/5a347019-6d5b-48bb-bfd5-5dbde30a07ab

2017年4月8日 星期六

蔣萬安選台北市長?市民中獎有福了

黃帝穎(作者為律師、永社理事)

民報/專欄 2017.04.07
http://www.peoplenews.tw/news/edb508f9-c8aa-4e0e-b7d1-ac2f0e28fcad

國民黨立委蔣萬安被控在競選活動11次送禮,金額在千元以上,涉嫌賄選,台灣高院卻判他無罪。(圖片來源:民報資料照
媒體報導,國民黨在台北市長的佈局,有勸進蔣家新生代蔣萬安的聲音。對於頻頻被點名代表國民黨參選台北市,國民黨立委蔣萬安受訪表示,包括前行政院長張善政、立委曾銘宗等人,都是很好的人選,「我的重心還是放在立法院」。確實,蔣萬安如能參選台北市長,依據高等法院判決認證的1850元送禮摸彩「當選有效」標準,台北市民有福了?

送禮1850元當選有效,豈不衝擊選風!

2016年12月,台灣高等法院(105年度選上字第7號民事判決)就國民黨立委蔣萬安當選無效之訴,宣判蔣勝訴確定。但可議的是,蔣萬安於2016年立委選舉前,在里民活動中分別贈送腳踏車、高級電扇等高級摸彩品,經台北地檢署調查指出,蔣萬安共有11次送禮行為,禮品價值分別為新台幣1500元到1850元不等。蔣萬安對此事實並無爭執,但高院仍認定蔣當選有效。換句話說,法院認證了蔣萬安選舉送禮摸彩可達1850元的標準。

網友流傳已久的網路影片(如下)清楚可見,在社區活動中,蔣萬安以立委候選人名義上台,從事競選拉票,並贈送高級禮品,此影片也經法院勘驗,但高院仍確定判決認證蔣萬安「當選有效」。法院認證的蔣萬安送禮摸彩標準,如能一體適用全國,則未來全國候選人,是否一律比照蔣萬安的1850元贈送摸彩品標準?各級公職候選人如何拒絕村里、樁腳、宮廟摸彩活動提供禮品的要求?沒有錢買禮品送人的候選人是否自然淘汰?法務部是否應配合修改陳定南部長所訂的30元賄選標準?

乾淨選風與清廉政治有緊密關係,在選舉期間花大錢送禮的候選人,選上後為了回本,貪污舞弊的風險甚高。這也是為什麼選罷法以刑事處罰賄選行為,並追究「當選無效」的原因。

蔣萬安下次選舉,千元摸彩獎品別忘了找他

可惜,法院在蔣萬安案樹立新標準,恐讓未來全國候選人都可比照蔣萬安贈送1850元摸彩品,導致有理念卻沒錢送禮的候選人,將被法院新樹立的1850元送禮選風所淘汰,嚴重傷害民主選舉的公平性。

誠然,法院在蔣萬安連續11次送摸彩品(價值1500元到1850元)案中,判蔣「當選有效」定讞,衝擊全國的乾淨選風。但這個判決對喜好摸彩的台北市民是個「好消息」。如果蔣萬安能代表國民黨參選台北市長,未來不論是村里活動、社區或家族的聯誼活動,請別忘了請蔣萬安捐贈摸彩品(法院認證蔣的高級禮品價值可達1850元),讓蔣以台北市長候選人身分上台拉票亦無不可。畢竟,法院已認證了蔣萬安贈1850元摸彩品的「當選有效」標準!市民朋友可把握法院認證的中「獎」機會。

「國民黨王子蔣萬安涉嫌賄選殞落精華影片」,圖片來源:Youtube