On the Study of the Principle of No Double Jeopardy for the Same Offense in Administrative Penalty Act -- Taking Land Use Regulation as An Example

• Main Authors: Huang Guo-liang, 黃國樑
• Other Authors: Chung Ping-Cheng
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/61777977359310256167

碩士 === 玄奘大學 === 法律學系碩士在職專班 === 98 === The “principle of no double jeopardy for the same offense”, also known as “protection against double jeopardy”, is a concept originating from the criminal law. This principle indicates that no person should be held criminally liable for the same cause of action twice or over. Such a concept is now regarded as a fundamental principle of modern democracy and rule of law. The “principle of no double jeopardy for the same offense” is similar to the concept of “no double jeopardy for the same cause of action”. Ever since the promulgation of Administrative Penalty Act, most literatures have adopted the term “no double jeopardy for the same cause of action”. Nevertheless, based on legal practices and interpretations of past cases, and on comparing with the principle of “res judicata” in the code of criminal procedure, this study continues the use of the term “no double jeopardy for the same offense”. The study and amendment of Administrative Penalty Act of Taiwan took over thirty years for completion. The Act was amended and approved by the Legislative Yuan on January 14th, 2005, and was promulgated by the then president on February 5th the same year. The Act came into effect one year later in accordance with its Article 26. Before the implementation of Administrative Penalty Act, applications of “no double jeopardy for the same offense” depended on the interpretations of Grand Justices of Judicial Yuan and practical adjudications. Through the understanding of legal system development and theoretical analyses, this study seeks to look for an application of “no double jeopardy for the same offense” which suits Taiwan’s customs better. Furthermore, this study proposes suggestions and improvements for the strength and weakness of “no double jeopardy for the same offense” based on the author’s administrative experiences. It is expected that through the combination of practices and theories and exploration from the aspects of process and physical, the “principle of no double jeopardy for the same offense” can fulfill the “protection against double jeopardy” and conform to the purpose of administration by the law and protection of human right.