論國家委託宗教組織提供社會福利服務之法制——以服務使用者權利保障為中心

Abstract

歷經近70多年來時空環境變遷，從過去國家與民間各自分立提供服務，到今日不僅是社會福利服務，政府於各方面行政任務上皆仰賴民間量能投入，並時常透過簽訂契約之方式，建立起公私協力法律關係。不可否認，民間服務之專業性、彈性化是優勢；惟也因為任務履行不再由國家直接掌控，要如何確保任務順利被履行，履約過程發生問題的權責歸屬又應如何分配，變成了委託外包問責制之難題。對於這種將任務執行面借助民間組織力量為之的「社會福利民營化」趨勢，學說上認為，國家仍負有一定擔保責任，不會因為將國家任務委由他人履行，就能遁逃給付法定社會福利服務之義務，僅是做的事情不同而已。故不須自行提供服務的政府機關，走向事前佈建合適的委託外包制度，並在事中、事後適時監督、控管受託組織之服務成效及品質。這些監管要求，對民間組織而言，生成更多約束及責任，對於有明確法律制度得以依循之需求也相對提升；《政府採購法》及《促進民間參與公共建設法》之制定，即是為因應前述需求之產物。 但上述這些討論之出發點，可以明顯看到，向來對於福利服務委託制度應該如何制定、修正，關注視角仍是在國家與服務提供者（民間組織）間，忽略了社會福利服務通常涉及對第三人提供服務，具有高度屬人性之特質，而非單純物品買受或工程定製。本於作為接受服務之第三方主體，服務使用者之權益亦應同受重視，而非反過來成為附屬於評估受託者有無如實完成任務之工具性指標；惟在要求應對服務使用者有所保障的同時，相對地也會課予服務提供者一定的限制及義務。為釐清三方彼此間的關係，並嘗試在現行制度下填補對服務使用者之保障規範，本文以於我國鮮少受到學說關注的宗教自由作為剖析面，去證立於公私協力關係中，為何服務使用者之權利有受保障之必要；而對於服務提供者而言，什麼樣的限制是適宜的？本文選擇以宗教自由為切入點，一方面係受到官民合作興建高雄杉林大愛園區（永久屋）過程，曾發生慈濟基金會之信仰與災民之信仰、文化相衝突之情形所啟發；另一方面則是宗教組織於我國提供服務本具有悠久的歷史脈絡，而其中一些常與政府合作，受政府獎補助具規模性的社福組織，皆具有特定的宗教背景。當我們習以為常地看待這些合作關係時，幾乎不曾問過國家能否與宗教組織合作？接受國家的獎補助經費和委託是否有可能違政教分離原則？當答案為否定時，國家委託宗教組織提供服務之行為，將根本性地違反政教分離原則；但當得出肯定答案時，便要進一步問國家應如何規範這些受託者，在不造成服務提供者權利過度限制之前提下，去保障服務使用者之權益。 由於我國較少結合二者併作討論，故本論文借鑑美國法上針對國家與宗教組織合作，訂定用以規範彼此間權利義務關係之慈善選擇（Charitable Choice）條款及其相關規定為主軸，如要求服務提供者不得基於宗教因素於提供服務時為歧視行為；不得強迫服務使用者參與宗教活動；並賦予服務使用者對服務提供者之宗教性有異議時，得轉介至其他宗教或世俗組織之權利。這些規定，在美國的脈絡下，係為避免政府資助宗教組織提供福利服務時，生違反美國憲法增修條文第一條「禁止設立國教條款」之疑慮，惟某程度上也發揮了保障服務使用者之功能。而回到我國，對於建構考量服務使用者主體性之權利保障制度時，美國法上有哪些規定值得援引參考，可以如何調整、修正適用於臺灣？本論文將透過兩國國情、歷史文化、制度規範為基礎比較分析後，嘗試提出本文觀點及修法建議。

Over the past 70 years, there have been significant changes in time and space regarding the provision of services by the state and the private sector. Nowadays, governments rely extensively on the third sector to not only deliver social welfare services, but handle administrative tasks. It has become common practice for governments to establish public-private partnerships with non-governmental organizations through contractual agreements. While the private sector brings advantages such as professionalism and flexibility to the provision of social welfare services, it poses challenges for the accountability system. With the state no longer having direct control over the execution of mandates, ensuring smooth task performance and assigning authority and responsibility have become difficult issues. The prevailing trend of “privatization of social welfare” relies on the private sector's ability to carry out government tasks. However, this does not absolve the state from its obligation to provide statutory social welfare services; it simply means that the state is adopting a different approach. Instead of directly providing services, government agencies are encouraged to establish suitable outsourcing systems and to oversee the effectiveness and quality of services provided by contractors. These regulatory requirements impose additional constraints and responsibilities on the private sector, thereby increasing the need for precise legal frameworks. The implementation of the Government Procurement Act and the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects can be seen as responses to the demands of the private sector. Nonetheless, the predominant focus has always been on the relationship between the state and service providers, often neglecting the fact that social welfare services typically involve highly personal services provided to third parties, rather than mere commodity transactions or tailor-made projects. Consequently, it is imperative to value the rights and interests of service users, who are the recipients of these services, rather than treating them solely as indicators for evaluating the performance of service providers. Simultaneously, while safeguarding the rights of service users, certain constraints and obligations are imposed on service providers. In order to clarify the relationship among the three parties and establish protective norms for service users within the prevailing system, this study aims to utilize the lesser-explored topic of religious freedom in Taiwan. It will demonstrate why it is necessary to safeguard the rights of service users in public-private partnerships and determine the appropriate restrictions that service providers should adhere to. This paper takes religious freedom as its starting point. On one hand, it draws inspiration from the conflicts that arose between the beliefs of the Tzu Chi Foundation and the beliefs and culture of victims during the construction of the Shanlin Da Ai Community, a collaboration between public offices and people. On the other hand, religious organizations have a long history of providing services in Taiwan, and some of the social welfare organizations that frequently collaborate with the government and receive grants have specific religious affiliations. While we often accept these partnerships as a matter of course, we rarely question whether the state can collaborate with religious organizations without violating the principle of separation of church and state. If the answer is no, contracting social welfare services to religious organizations would fundamentally breach this principle. However, if the answer is yes, it becomes necessary to consider how the state should regulate these service providers to protect the rights of service users without unduly restricting the rights of the providers. Given the limited discussion of these two topics together in Taiwan, this dissertation draws upon the legal provisions of the United States pertaining to charitable choice, which regulate the relationship between the state and religious organizations. For instance, these provisions require service providers to adhere to non-discrimination policies, ensure that service users are not compelled to engage in religious activities, and allow them to be transferred to other religious or secular organizations if they disagree with the provider's religion or beliefs. In the American context, these provisions are intended to avoid concerns that government grants funding for religious organizations providing social welfare services would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, to some extent, they also serve the function of protecting service users. In the context of Taiwan, when we are considering the construction of a system that can safeguard the rights of service users, which provisions of U.S. law are worthy of reference and how they can be amended for application in Taiwan. Through a comparative analysis of national conditions, history, culture, and institutional norms of both countries, I will attempt to present my perspectives and proposed legislative amendments in this paper.