反思私法人的憲法權利地位

Reflection on the Constitutional Personhood of Private Juridical Persons

10.6199/NTULJ.202209_51(3).0002

陳仲嶙(Chung-Lin Chen)

憲法權利主體 ； 憲法地位 ； 法人 ； 公司 ； 言論自由 ； constitutional personhood ； constitutional status ； juridical person ； corporation ； freedom of speech

臺大法學論叢

51卷3期（2022 / 09 / 01）

617 - 683

繁體中文

法人是否為憲法上之權利主體或得否享有憲法權利，已是古老且經豐富討論的主題。不論是美國或我國之釋憲實務，對私法人的憲法權利能力均採取肯定立場。然而，美國在2010年的Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission一案後，學界已興起一波思潮，反省企業得以運用言論自由等憲法權利為護身符，排除許多有價值之管制，是否真的符合憲法之精神。同樣的反省，也值得在我國憲法下開啟。本文之目的，即在從私法人憲法地位的理論基礎與潛在的保護路徑出發，探索否定私法人權利主體地位但仍能不遺留保護漏洞的可能性。本文主張，回歸個人的思維路徑，可以建構更有說服力的論理，提供私法人在憲法上妥適的位置。而在否定私法人權利主體地位的同時，讓其代表其自然人成員主張權利，將可以為公共利益之追求與個人權利之保障取得更佳之平衡。不僅在抽象理論層面進行分析，本文也藉由我國過去由法人或非法人團體聲請之釋憲案，以及幾個美國聯邦最高法院案例，消弭此一路徑在保障範圍上的質疑，並彰顯其在未來管制意涵上的意義。

Is a juridical person a person under the Constitution? Does it enjoy constitutional rights? These are old questions that have attracted rich discussion. Both in Taiwan and the United States, the judicial practices maintain that private juridical persons enjoy constitutional rights. The majority of the scholarly opinions in Taiwan also supports the constitutional personhood of private juridical persons, arguing that private juridical persons enjoy the same constitutional rights as natural persons where the rights suits them in nature. However, in the United States, after the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, a strong wave of reflection in the academic community emerges, questioning the wisdom of allowing commercial corporations to appeal to constitutional rights such as the freedom of speech to expel valuable regulation. The same reflection should be made under Taiwan's constitutional context. This article intends to explore the theoretical basis of and the potential approaches to the constitutional protection of private juridical persons, and offer the option that rejects the constitutional personhood of private juridical persons while leaves no protection loophole. This article argues that the approach based on the rights of individuals leads to more convincing reasoning and a more adequate answer on the constitutional status of private juridical persons. This article also suggests that allowing private juridical persons to represent individuals to claim constitutional rights, while rejecting the constitutional rights of private juridical persons themselves, could reach a more adequate balance between are grounded in not only theoretical analysis but also case studies. By exploring the application of the suggested approach to many Taiwan's Constitutional Court Interpretations that were petitioned by juridical persons or unincorporated groups and several U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the rights of corporations, this article shows the similarities and differences between the suggested approach and the current practices, and reveals significant implications for future regulation.

1. 官曉薇(2016)。美國法上對於公司言論自由保障之反思：論美國最高法院 Citizens United v. F.E.C 判決。臺北大學法學論叢，98，1-83。
   連結：
2. 陳仲嶙(2011)。徵收之憲法拘束：以「私用徵收」的違憲審查為中心。臺大法學論叢，40(3)，1029-1088。
   連結：
3. (1982).Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person.Yale Law Journal,91(8),1641-1658.
4. Allen, A. L.(1987).Rethinking the Rules Against Corporate Privacy Rights: Some Conceptual Quandries for the Common Law.John Marshall Law Review,20(4),607-639.
5. Baker, C. E.(1982).Realizing Self-Realization: Corporate Political Expenditures and Redish’s "The Value of Free Speech".University Pennysylvania Law Review,130(3),646-677.
6. Baker, C. E.(2009).The First Amendment and Commercial Speech.Indiana Law Journal,84(3),981-998.
7. Baker, C. E.(2011).Autonomy and Free Speech.Constitutional Commentray,27(2),251-282.
8. Blair, M. M.,Pollman, E.(2017).The Supreme Court’s View of Corporate Rights: Two Centuries of Evolution and Controversy.Corporations and American Democracy
9. Bloch, R. H.,Lamoreaux, N. R.(2017).Corporations and the Fourteenth Amendment.Corporations and American Democracy
10. Ciepley, D.(2013).Neither Persons nor Associations: Against Constitutional Rights for Corporations.Journal of Law and Courts,1(2),221-245.
11. Colombo, R. J.(2015).The First Amendment and the Business Corporation.Oxford University Press.
12. Dan-Cohen, M.(2016).Rights, Persons, and Organizations: A Legal Theory for Bureaucratic Society.Quid Pro, LLC..
13. Dworkin, R.(1992).Unenumerated Rights: Whether and How Roe Should Be Overruled.University Chicago Law Review,59(1),381-432.
14. Dworkin, R.(1977).Taking Rights Seriously.Harvard University Press.
15. Gans, D. H.,Shapiro, I.(2014).Religious Liberties for Corporations?: Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the Constitution.Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Greene, S. M.(2014).After Caronia: First Amendment Concerns in Off-Label Promotion.San Diego Law Review,51(3),645-708.
17. Greenfield, K.(2018).Corporations Are People Too (And They Should Act Like It).Yale University Press.
18. Greenwood, D. J.H.(1998).Essential Speech: Why Corporate Speech Is Not Free.Iowa Law Review,83(5),995-1070.
19. Kuhner, T. K.(2014).Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free Market Constitution.Stanford University Press.
20. List, C.,Pettit, P.(2011).Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents.Oxford University Press.
21. Macey, J. R.,Strine, L. E., Jr.(2019).Citizens United as Bad Corporate Law.Wisconsin Law Review,2019(3),451-530.
22. Mayer, C. J.(1990).Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights.Hastings Law Journal,41(3),577-667.
23. Nowak, J. E.,Rotunda, R. D.(2010).Constitutional Law.West Group.
24. Oliver, P.(2015).Companies and Their Fundamental Rights: A Comparative Perspective.International and Comparative Law Quarterly,64(3),661-696.
25. Piety, T. R.(2013).Brandishing the First Amendment: Commercial Expression in America.University of Michigan Press.
26. Pollman, E.(2011).Reconceiving Corporate Personhood.Utah Law Review,2011(4),1629-1675.
27. Pollman, E.(2014).A Corporate Right to Privacy.Minnesota Law Review,99(1),27-88.
28. Ripken, S. K.(2019).Corporate Personhood.Cambridge University Press.
29. Robinson, Z.(2016).Constitutional Personhood.George Washington Law Review,84(3),605-667.
30. Sepinwall, A. J.(2012).Citizens United and the Ineluctable Question of Corporate Citizenship.Connecticut Law Review,44(3),575-615.
31. Shanor, A.(2016).The New Lochner.Wisconsin Law Review,2016(1),133-208.
32. Siebecker, M. R.(2014).Securities Regulation, Social Responsibility, and a New Institutional First Amendment.Journal of Law & Politics,29(4),535-556.
33. Stephens, B.(2013).Are Corporations People? Corporate Personhood Under the Constitution and International Law.Rutgers Law Journal,44(1),1-38.
34. Sunstein, C. (2015, Apr 8). The 1st Amendment Has Become a Corporate Shield. Bloomberg News. https://www.daily-journal.com/opinion/editorials/the-1st-amendment-has-become-a-corporate-shield/article_822a49fa-8cb5-515fbf0b-48fa1e4adb95.html
35. Sunstein, C. (2015, Oct. 26). How to Fight Conflict Minerals? Mandatory Disclosure. Bloomberg View. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-26/how-to-fight-blood-diamonds-mandatory-disclosure-.
36. Torres-Spelliscy, C.(2016).Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State.Carolina Academic Press.
37. Tribe, L. H.(2000).American Constitutional Law.Foundation Press.
38. Tribe, L.,Matz, L.(2014).Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution.Henry Holt and Co..
39. Winkler, A.(2018).We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights.Liveright.
40. Wu, T. (2013, June 3). The Right to Evade Regulation: How corporations hijacked the First Amendment, The New Republic , https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation
41. 吳庚,陳淳文(2021).憲法理論與政府體制.自刊.
42. 吳信華(2011).憲法釋論.三民.
43. 李建良(2008)。自由、平等、尊嚴（下）：人的尊嚴作為憲法價值的思想根源與基本課題。月旦法學雜誌，154，193-211。
44. 李建良(2004).憲法理論與實踐（三）.新學林.
45. 李惠宗(2012).憲法要義.元照.
46. 李鴻禧(2002).台灣憲法之縱剖橫切.元照.
47. 東吳公法中心憲法小組（編）(2018).憲法講義.元照.
48. 林子儀(1999).言論自由與新聞自由.元照.
49. 林子儀(1987)。商業性言論與言論自由。美國月刊，2(8)，23-33。
50. 林冠廷(2019)。同性婚姻與宗教自由保障的衝突及調和：Obergefell v. Hodges 和 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission 之啟示。憲政時代，44(4)，397-456。
51. 法治斌,董保城.憲法新論.元照.
52. 張心悌(2008)。證券投資顧問事業之定義：兼論大法官會議釋字第六三四號解釋。月旦民商法雜誌，19，168-178。
53. 許志雄(1997)。法人與人權。月旦法學雜誌，31，10-11。
54. 許志雄,陳銘祥,蔡茂寅,周志宏,蔡宗珍(2000).現代憲法論.元照.
55. 許育典(2011).憲法.元照.
56. 許宗力(2003)。基本權利：第三講基本權主體。月旦法學教室，4，80-88。
57. 許宗力(1999).憲法與法治國行政.元照.
58. 許炳華(2015)。宗教信仰自由之爭議：以美國最高法院 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 案為探討核心。憲政時代，41(1)，1-43。
59. 許慶雄(1996)。人權保障之基本概念：本質、分類、享有主體之探討。律師通訊，202，12-26。
60. 陳仲嶙(2018)。我國憲法上未列舉權利之發展。憲政時代，44(2)，51-101。
61. 陳仲嶙(2011)。商業性言論憲法解釋十年回顧與評析。中原財經法學，27，101-150。
62. 陳新民(2015).憲法學釋論.三民.
63. 黃忠正(2013)。人性尊嚴的概念與界限。月旦法學雜誌，221，161-174。
64. 楊子慧(2020)。裁判憲法審查座談會報告。憲政時代，45(4)，391-400。
65. 楊建華(1997).民事訴訟法要論.自刊.
66. 詹鎮榮(2005)。從民營化觀點論公民合資公司之基本權能力。高大法學論叢，1(1)，77-137。
67. 劉靜怡(2005)。言論自由：第二講：言論自由的雙軌理論與雙階理論。月旦法學教室，28，42-51。
68. 蔡宗珍(1999)。基本權主體。月旦法學雜誌，46，107-110。
69. 謝碩駿(2004)。宗教團體作為憲法第十三條之基本權主體。月旦法學雜誌，113，130-149。
70. 顏錫卿(2005)。臺北，東吳大學法律學系。
71. 蘇永欽(2020)。裁判憲法審查座談會與談（一）。憲政時代，45(4)，401-410。