{"billNo":"1040423070200500","相關附件":[{"網址":"https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/download/agenda1/02/pdf/08/07/10/LCEWA01_080710_00030.pdf","名稱":"關係文書PDF"},{"網址":"https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/download/agenda1/02/word/08/07/10/LCEWA01_080710_00030.doc","名稱":"關係文書DOC"}],"議案流程":[{"會期":"08-07-10","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-05-01","2015-05-05"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-10"},{"會期":"08-07-10","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-05-01","2015-05-05"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-10"},{"會期":"08-07-11","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-05-08","2015-05-12"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-11"},{"會期":"08-07-11","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-05-08","2015-05-12"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-11"},{"會期":"08-07-13","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-05-22","2015-05-26"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-13"},{"會期":"08-07-13","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-05-22","2015-05-26"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-13"},{"會期":"08-07-14","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-05-29","2015-06-02"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-14"},{"會期":"08-07-14","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-05-29","2015-06-02"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-14"},{"會期":"08-07-15","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-06-05","2015-06-09"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-15"},{"會期":"08-07-15","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-06-05","2015-06-09"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-15"},{"會期":"08-07-16","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-06-12","2015-06-15","2015-06-16"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-16"},{"會期":"08-07-16","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-06-12","2015-06-15","2015-06-16"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-7-16"},{"會期":"08-08-02","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-09-18","2015-09-21","2015-09-22"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-2"},{"會期":"08-08-02","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-09-18","2015-09-21","2015-09-22"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-2"},{"會期":"08-08-03","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-09-25","2015-09-29"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-3"},{"會期":"08-08-03","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-09-25","2015-09-29"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-3"},{"會期":"08-08-04","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-10-02","2015-10-06","2015-10-13"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-4"},{"會期":"08-08-04","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-10-02","2015-10-06","2015-10-13"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-4"},{"會期":"08-08-05","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-10-16","2015-10-20"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-5"},{"會期":"08-08-06","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-10-23","2015-10-27"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-6"},{"會期":"08-08-06","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-10-23","2015-10-27"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-6"},{"會期":"08-08-07","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-10-30","2015-11-03"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-7"},{"會期":"08-08-07","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-10-30","2015-11-03"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-7"},{"會期":"08-08-08","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-11-06","2015-11-10"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-8"},{"會期":"08-08-08","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-11-06","2015-11-10"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-8"},{"會期":"08-08-09","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-11-13","2015-11-17"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-9"},{"會期":"08-08-09","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-11-13","2015-11-17"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-9"},{"會期":"08-08-10","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-11-20","2015-11-24"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-10"},{"會期":"08-08-10","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-11-20","2015-11-24"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-10"},{"會期":"08-08-11","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-11-27","2015-12-01"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-11"},{"會期":"08-08-11","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-11-27","2015-12-01"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-11"},{"會期":"08-08-12","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-12-04","2015-12-08"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-12"},{"會期":"08-08-12","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-12-04","2015-12-08"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-12"},{"會期":"08-08-13","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-12-11","2015-12-14","2015-12-15"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-13"},{"會期":"08-08-13","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-12-11","2015-12-14","2015-12-15"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-13"},{"會期":"08-08-14","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"排入院會","日期":["2015-12-16","2015-12-17","2015-12-18"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-14"},{"會期":"08-08-14","院會/委員會":"院會","狀態":"退回程序委員會","日期":["2015-12-16","2015-12-17","2015-12-18"],"會議代碼":"院會-8-8-14"}],"關連議案":[],"議案名稱":"「國家安全法第九條條文修正草案」，請審議案。","提案單位/提案委員":"本院委員周倪安等17人","議案狀態":"退回程序委員會","mtime":"2024-01-19T00:28:07+08:00","提案來源":"委員提案","議案類別":"法律案","first_time":"2015-05-01","last_time":"2015-12-18","會期":8,"屆期":8,"meet_id":"院會-8-7-10","字號":"院總第1434號委員提案第17667號","laws":["01441"],"提案編號":"1434委17667","提案人":["周倪安","田秋堇"],"案由":"本院委員周倪安、田秋堇等17人，針對現行國家安全法第九條第二款之規定，禁止遭受不當軍事審判之受難者藉由司法程序回復公平正義的機會，除不當限制人民訴訟權利、違反憲法第十六條的規範意旨，更無視在當時時空環境下統治者任意入人於罪，無端侵害人民自由與財產，甚至剝奪身家性命，嚴重戕害人權之事實。爰提出國家安全法第九條條文修正草案。是否有當？敬請公決。","連署人":["許添財","吳宜臻","李應元","葉宜津","賴振昌","陳唐山","陳其邁","林淑芬","蔡煌瑯","陳素月","李俊俋","黃偉哲","陳怡潔","邱志偉","葉津鈴"],"說明":"一、戒嚴時期不當審判案件為數逾兩萬九千，受害者更超過廿萬人。雖然，當事人多遭受匪諜、叛亂等罪名之審判，甚至慘遭槍決；但是，絕大多數確屬莫須有之罪名。即使極少數坐實者，多半亦係由於獨裁統治之不義所致。例如，蔣介石多次親自在判決書上手諭「死刑可也」。因此，戒嚴時期不當審判案件之存在，正是屬於違反人性罪之情形。而且，違反人性罪是不具追訴權時效限制者。\n二、在民主化浪潮下，台灣逐漸走向自由社會，連中國國民黨都已經跟中國共產黨把酒言歡、交心。如此，除突顯當年獨裁體制加諸人民的苦難之荒謬，更提醒台灣社會盡力填補受害者損害之迫切。而且，其絕非僅止於名譽、身分回復或財產發回等。但是，解嚴前制定之國家安全法第九條第二款在某種程度卻杜絕此一可能。在近卅年後的今天，其不僅令人深感時空錯置，有關於受害者上訴權之剝奪，除了侵害基本人權，更屬最大之不義。\n三、雖然，司法院大法官會議釋字第272號解釋，曾以「謀裁判之安定」以及「維持社會秩序之必要」為由，對國家安全法第九條加以肯定；但是，該條文不當限制人民之訴訟權，卻違反憲法第十六條保障人請願、訴願及訴訟權之規範意旨。而且，該號解釋並未指出解嚴後仍需維持戒嚴時期軍事審判安定性之具體理由，更未說明謀求戒嚴時期軍事審判之安定，是否為維持解嚴後之社會秩序所必要。於此，該條文顯然與憲法第二十三條之規範意旨有違。\n四、遺傳學的研究已經證實心理的創傷會透過影響遺傳形性，而對後代造成不可回復的傷害。從而，不當審判與獨裁統治的暴行對於受害者及其家屬生理或心理的創痛，可能難以回復。亦即，其造成之傷害絕非僅止於侵害生計、沒收財產，甚至剝奪生命而已。從而，「謀裁判之安定」以及「維持社會秩序」皆莫如回復人民無故受侵害之權利為重要。其思考更顯非出於人權保障之觀點。由於，人權之確保以及自由與尊嚴之捍衛，係開放、進步的社會所賴以維繫的社會信任與公平正義之基石。何況，司法院大法官會議第272號解釋，係解嚴之初，社會氛圍仍囿於獨裁統治淫威之產物，實不值識者一晒。\n五、2009年，兩公約已經「國內法化」。但是，諸多法律迄未修正，甚至還存在嚴重違反兩公約之情形。國家安全法第九條第二款即屬此類。甚且，自從馬總統上任以來，台灣人權指標多項倒退，例如，自由之家每年定期公布的新聞自由報告顯示，台灣新聞自由暴跌；在陳雲林等中國官員來台時，人民的集會遊行權利大幅受到壓制；官商勾結之下的土地強制徵收，引起劇烈抗爭；經濟人權嚴重倒退，貧富差距急速擴大等。雖然，2012年初次的國家人權報告已經出爐；但是，台灣人權卻是大幅後退。馬總統的人權保障只是名詞而非動詞。為加速台灣人權標準與世界接軌，保障人民憲法賦予的基本權利，給予政治受難者回復正義的機會實屬必要，爰提此條文之修正。","對照表":[{"law_id":"01441","law_name":"國家安全法","立法種類":"修正條文","title":"國家安全法第九條條文修正草案對照表","rows":[{"現行":"第九條　戒嚴時期戒嚴地域內，經軍事審判機關審判之非現役軍人刑事案件，於解嚴後依左列規定處理：\n\n一、軍事審判程序尚未終結者，偵查中案件移送該管檢察官偵查，審判中案件移送該管法院審判。\n\n二、刑事裁判已確定者，不得向該管法院上訴或抗告。但有再審或非常上訴之原因者，得依法聲請再審或非常上訴。\n\n三、刑事裁判尚未執行或在執行中者，移送該管檢察官指揮執行。","law_content_id":"01441:01441:1987-06-23-制定:9","說明":"一、戒嚴時期不當審判案件雖然受害者眾多，卻出現有受害者無加害者之情形。當時，所有罪狀全憑統治者認定，即使人證、物證具備亦無法排除其屬政治審判入人於罪之實質。\n\n二、在民主化浪潮下，台灣逐漸走向自由社會，連中國國民黨都已經跟中國共產黨把酒言歡、交心。如此，除突顯當年獨裁體制加諸人民的苦難之荒謬，更提醒台灣社會盡力填補受害者損害之迫切。而且，其絕非僅止於名譽、身分回復或財產發回等。但是，解嚴前制定之國家安全法第九條第二款在某種程度上卻杜絕此一可能。在近卅年後的今天，其不僅令人深感時空錯置，有關於受害者上訴權之剝奪，除了侵害基本人權，更屬最大之不正義。\n\n三、雖然，司法院大法官會議釋字第272號解釋曾以「謀裁判之安定」以及「維持社會秩序之必要」為由對國家安全法第九條加以肯定；但是，該條文不當限制人民之訴訟權，卻違反憲法第十六條保障人民請願、訴願及訴訟權之規範意旨。而且，該號解釋並未指出解嚴後仍需維持戒嚴時期軍事審判安定性之具體理由，更未說明謀求戒嚴時期軍事審判之安定是否為維持解嚴後之社會秩序所必要。於此，該條文顯然與憲法第二十三條之規範意旨有違。\n\n四、違反人性罪是不具追訴權時效限制者。\n\n五、人權之確保以及自由與尊嚴之捍衛，係開放、進步的社會所賴以維繫之社會信任與公平正義之基石。為加速台灣人權標準與世界接軌，保障人民憲法賦予的基本權利，給予政治受難者回復正義的機會實屬必要，爰提此條文之修正。","修正":"第九條　戒嚴時期戒嚴地域內，經軍事審判機關審判之非現役軍人刑事案件，於解嚴後依左列規定處理：\n\n一、軍事審判程序尚未終結者，偵查中案件移送該管檢察官偵查，審判中案件移送該管法院審判。\n\n二、刑事裁判已確定者，縱無再審或非常上訴之原因，仍得依據當時時空背景與證據法則向該管法院上訴或抗告。且不受時效之限制。\n三、刑事裁判尚未執行或在執行中者，移送該管檢察官指揮執行。\n\n前項案件之審理應設立特別法庭為之。其組織與職權之細節，由司法院制定之。"}]}],"ppg_url":"https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/bills/1040423070200500/details"}