社會給付請求權與設籍限制之研究：以實際居住作為替代方案之法律分析

Abstract

本文分析現行社會救助與社會促進制度後，發現現行法中有大量利用「需設籍」以及「需實際居住」兩種要素作為發給社會給付基礎之情，此種社會給付制度與戶籍制度相結合之規範模式，過去乃係為威權時代之社會控制之需要，隨著政治民主化，今日此種規範化為劃定各地方自治團體間管轄範圍的功能。 次者在有大量民眾存在遷移戶籍登記困難的現實下，本文透過生存權、遷徙自由以及平等權的分析，發現採用戶籍要素之社會給付制度皆有違反比例原則的疑慮，並且福利服務、社會救助以及社會津貼等不同類型之社會福利，調整方向也各不相同。福利服務考量申請人的服務可及性以及遷徙自由之保障，應單獨以「需實際居住」作為規範要素；社會津貼因給付額度全國統一，基此任擇「需設籍」或「需實際居住」之規範模式其一皆能妥適，然不適合同時採用，否則將造成未居住於戶籍地人民之請領障礙；社會救助需考量人民之最低生活條件，基此以「需實際居住」之模式規範方能妥適的確保給付額度與人民生活事實之關聯性。基此本文認為現行的社會給付制度應統一朝採用「需實際居住」之規範方式調整。 並且為因應制度變革，需有以下配套措施。一、中央政府應明訂「實際居住」之定義；二、應參考歐盟法第883/2004號規則下的選法規則，建立人民實際居住積極衝突的情形之規範方式；中央政府設算社會福利補助經費時，亦應將「實際居住」作為計算之權重；於制度修改之過度時期，地方社福預算出現短絀，則亦應以因應中央政策所增經費之機制予以挹注。

This article analyzes the current social assistance and social promotion system and finds that there are a large number of elements such as “required household registration” and "actual residence" used as the basis for providing social benefits in the current law. This combination of social benefit system and household registration system was originally a necessity for social control during the authoritarian era. With the democratization of politics, today this normative model serves the function of delineating the jurisdictional boundaries between local autonomous groups.

Furthermore, in light of the practical difficulty for many people to register their household registration due to migration, this article, through the analysis of the right to survival, freedom of movement, and equality, finds that social benefit systems using household registration elements may violate the principle of proportionality. Additionally, welfare services, social assistance, and social allowances have different adjustments. Welfare services should consider the accessibility of services for applicants and the protection of freedom of movement, and should independently use "actual residence" as a normative element. Social allowances, due to their uniform payment amounts nationwide, can appropriately adopt either the “required household registration” or "actual residence" normative model, but not both simultaneously, as this would create obstacles for people who do not reside in their registered domicile. Social assistance needs to consider the minimum living conditions of the people, and therefore, using the "actual residence" model as a normative approach can effectively ensure the relevance between the amount of benefits and the reality of people''s lives. In summary, the article suggests that the current social benefit system should be uniformly adjusted to adopt the "actual residence" normative approach.

In addition, to adapt to institutional changes, the following complementary measures are needed. Firstly, the central government should clearly define the meaning of "actual residence." Secondly, reference should be made to the option rules under EU Regulation No. 883/2004 to establish a normative approach for situations of positive conflict regarding people''s actual residences. When calculating social welfare subsidy funds, the central government should also consider "actual residence" as a weighting factor. During the transitional period of institutional changes, if there is a shortfall in local social welfare budgets, mechanisms should be established to supplement them with the increased funds due to central policies.