論道路交通管理處罰條例第7條之1民眾檢舉制度──針對2014年、2021年與2024年制度演進之評析

Abstract

本論文以道路交通管理處罰條例（下稱道交條例）第7條之1之民眾檢舉制度為主要研究課題，旨在對該制度進行全面性而深入之探討。交通違規民眾檢舉制度作為國家交通執法之補充機制，其存續之正當性、規範設計的妥適性與個案適用的界限，備受社會關注。因此，本文除了分別從「公私協力／民眾參與」角度與「正當法律程序」觀點剖析民眾檢舉制度之意義外，並從憲法與憲法基本原則之層次探討是否應贊同或反對該制度存在。 此外，本論文主要目的在介紹並分析交通違規民眾檢舉制度本身（即道交條例第7條之1）或影響該制度共三次之重要修法，包含2014年新增之7日檢舉期限與2021年新增之數行為符合一定條件下舉發以一次為限，以及2024年修正道交條例第63條將違規記點適用之範圍限縮於經當場舉發之案件。隨後，本文又深入討論相關細節執法之利弊，依序開展關於舉發通知單之法律爭議（如定性、道交條例第90條舉發時點之認定與裁決時效計算）、交通違規行為數之認定標準（如是否容許道交條例特別規定行為數認定之標準、道交條例第7條之1第3項與第85條之1第2項之比較），以及將違規記點範圍限縮之妥適性等爭議議題的分析。 最後，本論文提出修法建議，關於道交條例行為數之特別規定，本文提出兩種修正法律之方式，以使民眾檢舉舉發與逕行舉發行為數之認定標準趨於一致，避免體系價值不一致與違反平等原則疑慮之指摘。至於關於道交條例第63條之記點範圍，本文認為應移除「限縮在當場舉發案件」之限制，避免引發違反依法行政原則及平等原則之疑慮，並確保交通違規記點之成效。

This thesis focuses on the public reporting mechanism for traffic violations (hereinafter referred to as the public reporting mechanism) stipulated in Article 7-1 of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), aiming to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of the mechanism. As a supplementary mechanism to the state's traffic enforcement, the legitimacy of the mechanism's existence, the appropriateness of its regulatory design, and the boundaries of its application in individual cases are subjects of considerable public concern. Therefore, in addition to analyzing the significance of the public reporting mechanism from the perspectives of "Public-Private Partnership / Public Participation" and "Due Process of Law," this study also discusses whether the mechanism's existence should be supported or opposed from the constitutional level and based on fundamental constitutional principles. Furthermore, this thesis introduces and analyzes three significant amendments that either directly modified the public reporting mechanism itself (i.e., Article 7-1 of the Act) or substantially influenced it. These include the 2014 addition of the "seven-day limitation period for reporting," the 2021 addition of the rule limiting "multiple violations under circumstances to one single issuance of a notice," and the 2024 amendment to Article 63 of the Act, which restricts the scope of traffic violation demerit point system to cases where the violation was cited on the spot. Following this, the thesis delves into the pros and cons of related detailed enforcement practices, sequentially analyzing issues such as: legal disputes regarding the Issuance Notice (e.g., its legal nature, the determination of the reporting time under Article 90 of the Act, and the calculation of the statute of limitations for adjudication); the criteria for determining the number of traffic violation behaviors (e.g., whether special rules for determining the number of behaviors should be permitted under the Act, and a comparison between Article 7-1, Paragraph 3 and Article 85-1, Paragraph 2 of the Act); and the appropriateness of limiting the scope of traffic violation demerit point system. Finally, this thesis presents its proposals for legislative amendments. Regarding the special rules for determining the number of behaviors in the Act, this study proposes two methods of revision to standardize the criteria for behaviors cited via the public reporting mechanism and those cited via non-stop enforcement, thereby avoiding inconsistencies in the legal framework and criticisms concerning the violation of the principle of equality. As for the scope of the traffic violation demerit point system under Article 63 of the Act, this thesis argues that the restriction "limited to cases cited on the spot" should be removed. This removal is necessary to prevent concerns about violating the principle of equality and to ensure the effectiveness of the traffic violation demerit point system.