法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
「大學自治」-多少國家權力假汝之名!評大法官釋字第六二六號解釋(The Reality of State Delegation to Self-governance of University - on the Interpretation No.626 of Judicial Yuan)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 黃帝穎
出版日期: 2011.03
刊登出處: 台灣/致理法學第 9 期/1-30 頁
頁  數: 30 點閱次數: 3033
下載點數: 120 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 致理科技大學 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 學術自由大學自治法律保留原則工作權特別權力關係
中文摘要: 我國從民主轉型到邁向民主鞏固的過程中,深受過去威權體制「特別權力關係」之影響,導致人民有權利、未必有救濟的情況仍存在現今社會,不符合現代民主法治國之期待,而學校作為過去特別權力關係理論運作之溫床,人民受到大學侵害時,多居於弱勢地位,因此大學是否、如何承擔法律責任,即為民主法治進步與否的觀察指揮。司法院大法官釋字第六二六號解釋針對中央警察大學(以下簡稱警大) 研究所碩士班入學考試招生簡章限制色盲一律不得入學之規定,作出了尊重「大學自治」,採較嚴格審查基準(即中度審查)的合憲解釋,惟本文認為大法官跳躍地認定警大招生簡章為大學自治規章,進而免去法律保留原則之要求,又未探究色盲職業自由客觀上受到限制,逕採較嚴格的審查基準,而推論出合憲的結果,使色盲一輩子都不可能從事警察工作,有失公平。
首先定性,警大乃立於行政機關之地位而對於人民工作權作出客觀限制,在形式合憲性的檢驗過程中,大法官不應假借大學自治之名來迴避法律保留原則之要求,實則國家權力欲限制某特定人民(本件:色盲)之工作權(本件:擔任警察),應光明正大的以法律為之,接受法律保留原則之檢驗,而非躲到大學自治的背後,降低憲法賦予學術自由之制度性保障大學自治的格調。
而在實質合憲性的檢視過程中,大法官不應逃避色盲者職業自由受到客觀限制的問題,而不敢嚴格審查國家的侵權手段,如本件倘以法律明文限制色盲者,仍應區分色盲者辨色能力,視其色弱程度之輕重為不同程度之限制,並應將警察工作所涉內容予以細緻化,適才適所方能提升整體警察事務體系之行政效率,也唯有如此,國家對於限制色盲擔任警察的立法設計,才有可能通過嚴格審查下的比例原則。而不論如何定性警大法律地位,皆應確立「特別權力關係」之徹底揚棄,程序保障亦應是作為現代民主法治國的台灣所重視的課題。

英文關鍵詞: Academic FreedomSelf-governance of UniversityThe Principles of Law ReservationRight to WorkSpecial Power Relation
英文摘要: Taiwan is deeply affected by the influence of the “special power relation” of the past party-state system, resulting in people having rights, but not necessary relief; this does not meet the expectations of a modern nation under the democratic rule of law. While schools are serving as the breeding grounds for exercising relevant theories concerning the past special power relations, most university staff members and students become the‘minority group’ when their rights and interests are infringed by the university. Thus, questions related to whether and how universities can sustain legal liability have become the key aspects of the observation index regarding whether the legal and democratic aspects of a nation can progress.
The Interpretation No.626 of Judicial Yuan accounts that the Central Police University denies the color-blinded examinee's admission is constitutionality, the main reason is the self-governance of university could bypass the procedure requirements of Principles of Law Reservation. However, the Central Police University's rejection of color-blind applicant is equivalent to the denial of his or her chance to serve as a police officer, wherein the right to work is restricted. In this case, strict scrutiny shall apply, and the Central Police University's decision shall be held unconstitutional.
Regardless of whether the legal status to delimit the Central Police University, the pros and cons of the “special power relation” should be thoroughly developed or discarded. Procedural safeguards should also be an essential issue that Taiwan, as a modern nation under the democratic rule of law, should carefully consider
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、本案各主體間權利義務法律關係
之前理解
一、中央警大之法律地位?
二、人民何種基本權可能受侵害?
三、定性:本件屬國家權力對人民
工作權職業自由之客觀限制
參、國家限制人民基本權之形式合憲性評析
一、憲法直接限制(憲法保留原則)之檢驗
二、法律保留原則之檢驗
三、相關實務見解
肆、國家限制人民基本權之實質合憲性評析
一、公益目的之檢驗
二、比例原則之檢驗
伍、結論

相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
黃帝穎,「大學自治」-多少國家權力假汝之名!評大法官釋字第六二六號解釋,致理法學,第 9 期,1-30 頁,2011年03月。
返回功能列