兔寶寶痞客邦 兔寶寶粉絲團 首頁 網站導覽 加入最愛
English日本語

法學英文

發佈日期:0000-00-00
高雄律師-楊岡儒律師【法學英文選讀(9)】性交易行為之處罰與兩性平等(Penalty for Sexual Transactions & Gender Equality)


 

2010.5.8    高雄律師-楊岡儒律師

 

--

 

按「社會秩序維護法第八十條第一項第一款就意圖得利與人姦、宿者,處三日以下拘留或新臺幣三萬元以下罰鍰」之規定(下稱該規定),其涉及性交易行為、兩性平等及善良風俗等概念之範疇,關於該規定未審酌性交易行為如僅處罰意圖得利之一方,而不處罰支付對價之相對人(即俗稱之『罰娼不罰嫖』),並以主觀上之得利意圖作為處罰之標準,顯然於法律上已形成『差別待遇』,尤其是社會經濟弱勢而從事性交易之女性,是否顯然可歸責及處罰,均乏明確之立法依據且未審酌憲法上之人權保障,應與憲法第七條之平等原則,尤其是兩性平等之理念相違,故大法官會議釋字666號特別就此認為,自該解釋公布之日起至遲於二年屆滿時,失其效力。

 

 

 

以下謹然援引大法官會議釋字666號之理由書,並期盼違憲之該規定,能依據憲法第七條所揭示之平等原則,充分保障社會弱勢,兼顧社會現況而為立法之修正。

 

 

 

祝福安好與順心如意

 

兔寶寶律師  謹筆

 

 

 

--------

 

大法官會議解釋:釋字第666理由書:   

 

憲法第七條所揭示之平等原則非指絕對、機械之形式上平等,而係保障人民在法律上地位之實質平等,要求本質上相同之事物應為相同之處理,不得恣意為無正當理由之差別待遇。法律為貫徹立法目的,而設行政罰之規定時,如因處罰對象之取捨,而形成差別待遇者,須與立法目的間具有實質關聯,始與平等原則無違。

 

 

 

社會秩序維護法第八十條第一項第一款規定(下稱系爭規定),意圖得利與人姦、宿者,處三日以下拘留或新臺幣三萬元以下罰鍰,其立法目的,旨在維護國民健康與善良風俗(立法院公報第八十卷第二十二期第一○七頁參照)。依其規定,對於從事性交易之行為人,僅以意圖得利之一方為處罰對象,而不處罰支付對價之相對人。

 

 

 

按性交易行為如何管制及應否處罰,固屬立法裁量之範圍,社會秩序維護法係以處行政罰之方式為管制手段,而系爭規定明文禁止性交易行為,則其對於從事性交易之行為人,僅處罰意圖得利之一方,而不處罰支付對價之相對人,並以主觀上有無意圖得利作為是否處罰之標準,法律上已形成差別待遇,系爭規定之立法目的既在維護國民健康與善良風俗,且性交易乃由意圖得利之一方與支付對價之相對人共同完成,雖意圖得利而為性交易之一方可能連續為之,致其性行為對象與範圍廣泛且不確定,固與支付對價之相對人有別,然此等事實及經驗上之差異並不影響其共同完成性交易行為之本質,自不足以作為是否處罰之差別待遇之正當理由,其雙方在法律上之評價應屬一致。再者,系爭規定既不認性交易中支付對價之一方有可非難,卻處罰性交易圖利之一方,鑑諸性交易圖利之一方多為女性之現況,此無異幾僅針對參與性交易之女性而為管制處罰,尤以部分迫於社會經濟弱勢而從事性交易之女性,往往因系爭規定受處罰,致其業已窘困之處境更為不利。系爭規定以主觀上有無意圖得利,作為是否處罰之差別待遇標準,與上述立法目的間顯然欠缺實質關聯,自與憲法第七條之平等原則有違。

 

 

 

為貫徹維護國民健康與善良風俗之立法目的,行政機關可依法對意圖得利而為性交易之人實施各種健康檢查或宣導安全性行為等管理或輔導措施;亦可採取職業訓練、輔導就業或其他教育方式,以提昇其工作能力及經濟狀況,使無須再以性交易為謀生手段;或採行其他有效管理措施。而國家除對社會經濟弱勢之人民,盡可能予以保護扶助外,為防止性交易活動影響第三人之權益,或避免性交易活動侵害其他重要公益,而有限制性交易行為之必要時,得以法律或授權訂定法規命令,為合理明確之管制或處罰規定。凡此尚須相當時間審慎規劃,系爭規定應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於二年屆滿時,失其效力。

 

 

 

 

 

J. Y. Interpretation No.666

 

Reasoning

 

The principle of equality prescribed by Article 7 of the Constitution does not mean absolute and mechanical equality in formality, but is for the protection of substantive equal status under the law, which requires matters identical in nature be treated and handled identically without being subjected to differential treatment arbitrarily or for no proper justification. When a law imposes administrative penalties to carry out certain legislative purpose so that the selection of target to be penalized results in differential treatment, it has to have substantive nexus with the legislative purpose in order not to violate the principle of equality.

 

 

 

Article 80, Section 1, Sub-section 1 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (hereinafter the disputed provision) provides that any individual who engages in sexual conduct or cohabitation with intent for financial gains is punishable by detention not more than three days, or by a fine not more than NT$30,000. Its legislative purpose is to maintain protect public health and social morals (see The Official Gazette of the Legislative Yuan, vol. 80, no. 22, p. 107). According to this provision, only those who intent for financial gains are subject to penalties, but not the ones who provide the consideration on the other side.

 

 

 

Whereas how to regulate and whether penalty is warranted for sexual transactions is within the confines of legislative discretion, the Social Order Maintenance Act chooses to take administrative penalties as the control measure, with the disputed provision expressly prohibits sexual transactions, imposes penalties only against those who engage in sexual transactions with the intent for financial gains, but not the opposite parties who provide consideration. In addition, by adopting the subjective intent for financial gains as the standard for penalties, a differential treatment has legally been created. Given that the legislative purpose of the disputed provision is to maintain citizens’ health as well as ordre public and morality, and that a sexual transaction require the joint acts between one party having the intent for financial gains and the opposite party who provide consideration, although there is a distinction between the two in that the former is likely to engage in continuous acts which result in uncertain and extended sex partners, such factual and experiential differences does not alter the innate character that a sexual transaction is completed through their joint acts, and not sufficient to justify the differential treatment in imposing penalties while both sides ought to be legally evaluated with consistency. Moreover, since the disputed provision does not consider the party who provides consideration culpable yet penalizes the party having the intent for financial gains, in light of the fact that the gender of the latter is more likely to be female, it virtually amounts to a control that only target and punish those females participated in sexual transactions. Particularly for some of the socially and economically disadvantaged females who engage in sexual transactions, their already miserable situations are often further aggravated by the penalties of the disputed provision. The disputed provision that uses subjective intent for financial gains as the standard for differential treatment on the imposition of penalties apparently does not have substantive nexus with the legislative purpose stated above, and naturally violates the principle of equality prescribed by Article 7 of the Constitution.

 

 

 

In order to carry out the legislative purpose of maintaining citizens’ health as well as ordre public and morality, the government agency may implement different kinds of management or counseling measures for those engage in sexual transactions with the intent for financial gains in accordance with the law such as physical examinations or safe sex awareness; may also provide job training, career counseling or other educational methods to enhance their work capacity and economic condition so that it is no longer necessary [for them] to use sexual transactions as the means for livelihood; or adopts other effective management measures. Other than providing the most possible protection and assistance to the socio-economically disadvantaged people, in order to prevent sexual transaction activities from [negatively] impacting on third party’s interests, or to avoid sexual transaction activities infringing on other important public interests, the State may, when necessary to restrict sexual transactions, enact statutes or authorize the promulgation of regulations to provide reasonable and precise rules to control or penalize. Given that this requires substantial time for careful planning, the disputed provision shall cease to be effective no later than two years from the issuance of this Interpretation.

 

帝謙法律事務所官方網站   :http://www.dclaw.tw
高雄律師-楊岡儒律師網站1:http://www.lawfirm.com.tw
高雄律師-楊岡儒律師網站2:http://www.lawoffice.com.tw

 




上一則   |   回上頁   |   下一則