平等選舉原則之理論與實際──論臺日國會選舉各選舉區間人口數差異問題

Abstract

臺灣與日本之國會選舉均有各個選舉區間人口數差異過大，而被質疑違反憲法上平等選舉原則之問題。本文採取質性研究方法中的「文獻分析法」及「比較研究法」，蒐集分析相關學說及司法實務見解，以研究並比較臺日的相關問題。 我國區域立法委員選舉「票票不等值」爭議之主因乃我國現行《憲法增修條文》第4條立法委員「每縣市至少一人」之規定（以下簡稱「系爭規定」）。我國學者普遍認為「平等選舉原則」之內涵，對於選舉權人而言，即指「一人一票原則」及「每票等值原則」，惟對於系爭規定是否違反憲法上之平等選舉原則則存在爭議。而第七屆立法委員選舉後，上開「票票不等值」爭議首度被帶進我國法院，惟我國司法實務相關之累積案例為數尚少，遑論形成可依循之審查標準。 日本憲法上的「平等選舉原則」之內涵與我國學者之理解大致相同。而日本國會選舉各選舉區間人口數差異問題之原由為二戰後急速之都市化所致，且尚可再分為數個主要原因，其中多數原因於我國亦同樣適用。而對於眾議院選舉各選舉區間可容忍之最大差異，目前日本學者普遍認同應以未滿 2 倍為標準，而日本學界對參議院的基準則較為分歧。至於日本最高法院對於爭執眾、參兩議院選舉之各選舉區間人口數差異訴訟之判斷架構，基本上係分別承襲昭和51年（西元1976年）判決及昭和58年（西元1983年）判決所立下之基準進行審查。而日本最高法院可容忍之最大差異，長期以來於眾議院是以未滿3倍、於參議院以未滿6倍為標準，惟晚近均有降低之趨勢。而日本政治部門近年為因應日本最高法院相關判決之見解變更亦進行重要相關修法措施。 最後，於結論上，由於區域立法委員「每縣市至少一人」為我國《憲法增修條文》所明定，以及從優惠性差別待遇措施的角度而言，均難遽謂系爭規定違憲。惟從比較法的角度，我國現行立法委員選舉制度既是參考自日本，而先分配1個席次予各縣的作法已被日本最高法院認定屬違憲狀態而被日本國會廢止，則與其作法類同的系爭規定即有重新檢討修正之必要。

The significant difference in the number of population between constituencies has been challenged for the violation of the principle of equality. Through qualitative approach such as text analysis and comparative analysis, the research studies and compares the difference between Taiwan and Japan on problems of the difference in population between constituencies and analyzes relevant studies and practices. The controversies over the difference in population between constituencies are the results of the fourth amendment of the Constitutions of ROC, assigning at least one Legislator to each constituency. For most scholars, they believe the principle of equality in election is the equal weight of each vote and therefore do not consider any violation of that principle in the elections. However, there are also opposite views among scholars. After the legislators elections in 2008, the controversies had been brought about to courts. However, there are only few cases in practice let alone the acceptable reviews or standards that can be followed. The concept of the principle of equality of the Constitution of Japan is generally the same as what is upheld by the scholars in Taiwan. The significant difference in the number of population between constituencies in Japan is the result of the rapid speed of urbanization after WW2. There are also other reasons similar to those of Taiwan that can justify this phenomenon. The maximum multiple calculated as the difference between the number of population between constituencies that is acceptable in the election of the House of Representatives of Japan is 2 times, as generally accepted by most scholars in Japan whereas the acceptable multiple in the election of the Senate is in dispute. As for the Supreme Court of Japan, the frameworks dealing with the controversies over the difference in the number of population between constituencies for the election of the House of Representatives and the Senate inherit from the reviews and resolutions in 1976 and 1983. The final resolution for the standard of the maximum multiple acceptable for years is 3 times for the election of the House of Representatives and 6 times for that of the Senate. Nevertheless, the multiple has gradually decreased in recent years, resulting in the authorities concerned to amend relevant laws in order to meet the changes in the resolutions made by the Supreme Court. Finally, in conclusion, judging from the fact that the Amendment of the Constitution of ROC has clearly assigned at least one Legislator to each constituency and from the perspectives of affirmative action, in the sense of Comparative Laws, the significant difference in the number of population between constituencies cannot be regarded as the violation of the Constitutions of ROC. The electoral system for the legislators takes that of Japan as a reference and the governing way of assigning at least one Legislator to each constituency has been considered the violation of the Constitutions of Japan by the Supreme Court, and as a result abolished by the Congress of Japan. Therefore, the similar approach that has been abolished in Japan whereas is still taken in Taiwan shall be rectified.