公務員言論自由限制之司法審查

Abstract

自特別權力關係理論遭到揚棄以來，對於公務員言論自由，已不得動輒以特別權力關係之名任意進行限制。就理論上的問題而言，即是如何劃定公務員言論自由之範圍與界限。本文於參照美國、日本實務判決及學理後，就限制公務員言論自由之國家行為類型，區分為法律層次之規範限制及具體個案適用。前者係立法者以法律之方式對於公務員言論進行限制，具體而言，即是我國公務員行政中立法及公務人員服務法所規定之複數義務規範；後者係行政機關於具體個案中適用法律之見解。本文認為就法律層次之規範限制，其所應遵守之憲法上誡命係「比例原則」及「法律明確性原則」，前者要求立法者必須釐清憲法上公務員所應遵守之義務，並區分不同職位及言論發表之內容、時間、地點、方式進行規範，不得以概括規定之方式將所有言論一網打盡；後者則要求法律規範之文義必須具體明確，使受規範者得以理解。就具體個案適用部分，由於公務員違失行為之樣態眾多，法律不可能為鉅細靡遺之規範，因此以不確定法律概念進行規制並不當然違憲。惟司法者並不能恣意解釋，而是必須為「合乎憲法意旨之法律解釋」並進行審查，始為妥當。本文認為此涉及「言論自由保障」及「公務員義務履行」兩個憲法原則相互衝突問題。司法者於進行利益衡量時，必須先就「公務員義務履行」部分，判斷主管機關是否正確解釋公務員義務之內涵，及其言論與公務員之職務內容是否互不相容而定之；次之，就「公務員言論自由」部分，則分別就「發表言論之時間、地點及方式」及「發表言論之內容」進行審查；最後就兩者進行利益衡量，以決定系爭言論是否受到保障。

Since the theory of “besondere Gewaltverhältnis” has been abandoned, it cannot be based on “besondere Gewaltverhältnis” to limit public employee freedom of speech arbitrarily. On the theoretical issue, that is, how to define the scope and the boundaries of public employee freedom of speech. After referring to the American and Japanese court judgments and theories, with respect to the types of state restrictions on public employee freedom of speech, this thesis divides them into “legal restriction” and “legal application to specific cases”. The former is that the legislator restricts public employee speech by means of law; the letter is that the administration applies law to specific cases. With regard to “legal restriction”, this thesis argues that “the Principle of Proportionality” and “the Principle of Legal Certainty” are the legislator’s constitutional obligations. The former requires the legislator to clarify the duties of public employee in the constitution, and to distinguish different positions, and contents of speech, and the time, place, manner of expression. The legislator cannot restrict public employee speech broadly. The letter requires that the meaning of law shall be specified so that public employee can understand it correctly. With regard to “legal application to specific cases”, because illegal acts of public employee are complicated, so the legislator should not regulate them in detail. Therefore, the regulation by “Uncertain Legal Concepts” is not unconstitutional. However, the judiciary cannot interpret it arbitrarily. Instead, the judiciary shall interpret law in light of constitution and review administrarive acts. This thesis argues that the issue is the conflict of constitutional principles between “the freedom of speech” and “the duties of public employee”. When the judiciary balances interests, firstly, the judiciary shall clarify “the duties of public employee”, and examine whether the speech is is incompatible with public employee position; secondly, with regard to the “freedom of speech”, the judiciary shall examine “the time, place, and manner of speech” and “the content of speech”; finally, the judiciary shall balance two interests, and determine whether the speech is guaranteed.