以程序補強明確性?—論司法院釋字第767號之於藥害救濟及其擴散效應

Translated title of the contribution: Can a Process of Notice Save a Statute from Vagueness? A Study on J.Y. Interpretation No. 767 and Its Implication to Vagueness Doctrine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Vagueness doctrine, which is a crucial element of the rule of law, has been recognized by the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) and utilized as a standard for judicial reviews. According to TCC, vagueness doctrine includes comprehensibility, foreseeability, and judicial reviewability. J.Y. Interpretation No. 767 apparently includes another factor to vagueness doctrine, i.e., a process of notice-giving. No. 767 denies a drug injury remedy because victims have been duly notified of the risks of drug injury during their treatment as a part of the process of notice-giving required by the medical law. However, the legal basis of such denial (according to the Drug Injury Relief Act) is arguably vague. To ensure the participants can foresee the risk of drug injury and possible denial of remedy, the judiciary must review the implementation of the process of notice on an ad hoc basis. With the function of notification, the disputed article in the Drug Injury Relief Act is not unconstitutional. However, because the process of notice is generally not included in the daily lives of people, this new factor does not fundamentally change the vagueness doctrine in constitutional law or administrative law, as a general matter
Translated title of the contributionCan a Process of Notice Save a Statute from Vagueness? A Study on J.Y. Interpretation No. 767 and Its Implication to Vagueness Doctrine
Original languageTraditional Chinese
Pages (from-to)159-198
Number of pages40
Journal中原財經法學
Issue number42
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019

Keywords

  • Vagueness doctrine
  • J.Y. Interpretation No. 767
  • drug injury relief
  • process of notification

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Can a Process of Notice Save a Statute from Vagueness? A Study on J.Y. Interpretation No. 767 and Its Implication to Vagueness Doctrine'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this