論商工團體業必歸會制度之合憲性

Abstract

商工團體，指依商業團體法成立之「商業團體」及工業團體法成立之「工業團體」之合稱。上開二法皆規定1.商業、工業之公司、行號、工廠必須加入或組織所在地之同業公會；同業公會必須加入或組織所在地之商業會或工業會。2.商工團體之組織範圍，等同於政府之行政區域劃分。3.如商工團體有更上級者，應加入之。上開三項規定即為「業必歸會」。本文主要研究問題，即在於探討商工團體之業必歸會制度限制商工團體及其構成員之結社自由，是否合憲。 本文首先分析商業團體法、工業團體法及其沿革等相關文獻，釐清我國商工團體之涵義、任務及層級體系後，認為商工團體應屬私法人並得作為基本權之主體，並得就受強制加入商工團體一事主張結社自由；次於比較法研究中發現，我國既未如大陸法模式賦予商工團體公權力及公行政任務，使商工團體協助國家完成任務；亦未循英美法模式由商工團體於自由市場中自由競爭提供會員具實益之服務。此一研究發現有助於違憲審查之操作。 目前司法院大法官作成有關結社自由之解釋甚少，且審查基準不甚清晰，故本文採取「階層式比例原則」，並擇取「基本的中度審查基準」，認為業必歸會制度所追求之目的，政府無法論證具有實質重要性，亦未能舉證業必歸會制度與所追求之目的間具備實質關聯性，應屬違憲。

The term “commercial and industrial organizations” refer to the combination of the 'charber of commerce ' established in accordance with the Commercial Groups Act of 1972 and the 'chamber of industry' established in accordance with the Industrial Groups Act of 1974. Both Acts require that each and every commercial and industrial company, firm, and factory of an administrative district shall join or organize an association of commerce or chamber of industry; and all local associations of commerce or industry shall join or organize a local chamber of commerce or chamber of industry by category; all local chambers of commerce or of industry shall join or organize the national chamber of commerce and industry. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether, and to what extent, such Compulsory membership requirements are in conformity with the freedom of association enshrined by the Constitution of the Republic of China. After carefully analyzing the relevant provisions of the Commercial Groups Act as well as the Industrial Groups Act, including their evolutions, the study concludes that the associations and chambers at issue are private legal persons, and are therefore entitled to claim the freedom of association. This study also found, from a comparative law perspective, that the associations and chambers at issue have not been equipped with public powers or specific administrative tasks. These findings facilitated the constitutional review ensued. The Judicial Yuan, actually the Constitutional Court, has so far made only a few decisions (officially known as Interpretations) on freedom of association, and the standards of constitutional review therein have not been clear at all. The study adopts the so-called 'hierarchical proportionality principle' and choose the 'basic mid-level scrutiny” for review. It submitted that as the government could not prove the Compulsory membership at issue is aimed at achieving some important governmental/ public interests, and failed to prove that there is a substantial relationship between the Compulsory membership at issue and the purpose pursued, the Court could only conclude that the Compulsory membership at dispute is in violation of the freedom of association enshrined by the Constitution.