限制人身自由之正當程序保障源於英國大憲章第39條中，而其理念於美國聯邦憲法增修條文第5條「正當程序條款」中實現之。我國憲法第8條第1項亦如同日本憲法第31條「任何人非依法定程序，不得剝奪其生命或自由，或科其他刑罰」所揭示之「法定程序」用語。其「法定程序」是否與美國「正當法律程序」同義？日本多數學者抱持肯定態度，我國憲法第8條第1項既為同樣之用語，是否亦可作相同之詮釋？而不同的基本權及程序種類是否須相應給予不同之程序密度要求？亦即此等正當法律程序原則之審查標準為何？藉由參酌日本判例與國內相關大法官釋字，均為本文所欲探討之重點。 The guarantee of Due process of the restriction of personal freedoms originates from Magna Carta, c. 39. This concept was applied in the Due Process Clause in Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Article 8.1 of ROC Constitution and the Article 31 of Japan Constitution both states, “No person shall be deprived of life or be subjected to any other penalties without legal procedures.” Is the term “legal procedures” in ROC Constitution and in Japan Constitution has s same definition as “Due process” in the United States Constitution? As for the question, most Japanese scholars hold a positive attitude.Can the same term used in Article 8.1 of our Constitution be interpreted in a same way? Should we make different but requirements for different types of basic rights and procedures? What is the standard to examine the Due process? The purpose of this paper is to discuss the definition of Due Process through consulting with Japanese legal precedents and domestic constitntional interpretation.
