論社會立法違憲審查之立法論理義務 ——以德國聯邦憲法法院最低生存保障裁判為借鏡

Abstract

憲法上之社會國原則與社會憲法條款須經由立法落實、社會立法又經常帶有主政者之政策與價值導向，因此於違憲審查案件中，社會憲法條款之規範效力與立法者之形成自由間存在一緊張關係，憲法法院在何種範圍內得作如何之審查，向來為社會法領域的辯論主題。以此為背景，本文嘗試借鏡德國法上立法論理義務之實踐作為前開問題之回應，主要問題意識與回應可分為三大點： 第一為國內社會立法違憲審查實務圖像與問題之現況爬梳。對於立法形成空間概念之理解，實則指出由於憲法規範具體化為下位階法規範時之落差，必然存有立法形成空間，且立法形成空間之正當性與界線皆為憲法所賦予，僅在不同立法或事物領域中可能有立法形成空間寬窄之區分。在此理解下，大法官經常採取之「某事項或特定事物領域因某特性，立法者有較大立法形成空間」之論述方式，於社會立法之違憲審查中尤然。然而，觀察大法官於社會立法案件中廣泛承認立法形成空間之實踐，可能導致立法形成空間作為釋憲者迴避實質論證或價值判斷之工具，更使人民與立法者皆難以預測大法官採取立法形成空間之論證時，可能會導出何種結論。有鑒於社會立法領域往往涉及基本權利與基本國策規定所涉複雜利益衡量與資源分配問題、未知與發展動態性較強，有賴立法者做出預測決定與動態修正，且越是牽涉複雜利益衡量之決定，越應要求立法者充分考量各種可能相衝突的利益，在此等立法形成空間與基本權利保障間之拉扯，本文提出立法論理義務以程序正義控制結果正義之審查模式之理念得作為回應社會立法此種特性之一種新切入點。 第二為立法論理義務於理論層次之證成問題。本文提出以「立法論理義務審查」作為司法於尊重社會立法之形成自由時，仍能課予一定合憲性控制之工具。在正當性基礎上，本文主張立法論理義務無論在德國基本法上與我國憲法上皆有之，主要著眼於社會立法之案件涉及憲法委託之具體化，於給付性立法或干預性立法之審查上，審查系爭規範是否符合憲法委託意旨下的明顯不足禁止原則、比例原則，以及平等原則時，對於立法事實之認定，皆有尊重立法形成空間之必要，予以因應而發展出之特殊審查方法。在權力分立問題上，本文認為德國法上反對論點的諸多批評可能過度誇大了立法論理義務審查的影響力，並以支持論點中補償理論之說明，最能夠呈現立法論理義務在聯邦憲法法院裁判中的發展脈絡，以及說明其司法在消極性與積極性間的光譜定位。 第三為立法論理義務應如何實踐之問題。本文以德國最低生存保障相關裁判為借鏡，認為立法論理義務審查具體上應包括適當評估方法、邏輯一貫性、透明性，以及監督與修正義務等子內涵。在立法論理義務之審查密度上，本文認為憲法委託有無提供更為具體之量化指引、不同的社會給付根據其立法目的或所涉之憲法委託基礎具有不同的量化原則，也可作為立法論理義務中一定的框架限制；所涉基本權利之重要性、干預嚴重性，及規範實施時間長短，得作為是否提高立法論理義務審查之考量因素。從部分過去之違憲審查案件中，也可發現大法官在論證中指出應社會給付之給與應切合實際、不得給予過度照顧，或透過言詞辯論或發函關係機關之方式，命關係機關提出立法理由與其他立法事實之說明，達到類似立法論理義務審查之效果。此種立法事實調查之審查實踐，可望能夠作為立法論理義務審查之切入點，使其審查步驟與內容更為明確，或依不同案件類型化其審查內涵，又或者可進一步結合現有立法理由之實踐、強化立法理由之功能。

The social state principle and social constitutional provisions in Constitution must be implemented through legislation, and social legislation is often guided by the policies and values. Therefore, there exists a tension between the effectiveness of social constitutional provisions and the the margin of appreciation of the legislator. The breadth and depth to which the Constitutional Court can review have always been subjects of debate in the field of social law. Against this background, this thesis attempts to address the aforementioned issue by drawing on the practice of legislator’s obligation of reasoning in German law. The main issues can be divided into three parts: 1. Current Status and Issues of Constitutional Review of Domestic Social Legislation: The understanding of the concept of the margin of appreciation of the legislator points out that there is inevitably a gap when constitutional norms are concretized into subordinate regulations, leading to the existence of the margin of appreciation. The legitimacy and boundaries of the margin of appreciation are given by the constitution. Under this understanding, the Constitutional Court often adopt the argument that "legislators have more in certain matters or specific areas due to certain characteristics," which is particularly notable in social law cases. However, this practice may be used as a tool for avoiding substantive reasoning or value judgments, making it difficult for both the public and legislators to predict the outcomes the Constitutional Court may draw. Given that social law often involves complex interest balancing and resource allocation, which are dynamic and unpredictable, there is a need for legislators to make predictive decisions and dynamic adjustments. The more complex the interest balancing involved, the more legislators should be required to fully consider the various potentially conflicting interests. In this regard, this thesis proposes a new approach to address the characteristics of social legislation through the concept of “legislator’s obligation of reasoning,” controlling procedural justice to achieve substantive justice. 2. Justification of Legislative Rationality Obligations at the Theoretical Level: On the basis of legitimacy of the obligation of reasoning of legislator, it argues that the lagislator’s obligation of reasoning exists both in the German Basic Law and in the Constitution of Taiwan, focusing on cases involving the concretization of constitutional mandate in social legislation. Regarding the issue of separation of powers, this thesis argues that many criticisms against the argument may have overstated the influence of the the lagislator’s obligation of reasoning, and the compensatory theory within supporting arguments best explains the development of lagislator’s obligation of reasoning in the German Federal Constitutional Court's rulings and their judicial spectrum between passivity and activity. 3. Practical Implementation of Legislative Rationality Obligations: Using the German rulings on guarantees of minimum subsistence security as a reference, this thesis believes that the legislator’s obligation of reasoning should be examined in terms of appropriate assessment methods, logical consistency, transparency, and the obligation to monitor and amend. In terms of the density of scrutiny, the provision of more specific quantitative guidelines by constitutional mandates, different quantitative principles based on legislative purposes or constitutional mandates of social benefits, and factors such as the importance of involved fundamental rights, severity of intervention, and duration of regulatory implementation should be considered in determining the review intensity of the legislator’s oblagation of reasoning. From past constitutional review practices, it is evident that the Grand Justices have indicated that social benefits should be realistic and not excessively generous, or that the Grand Justices examining the legislative record and ordering the competent authorities to provide legislative reasons and explanations of legislative facts. This investigation of legislative facts can serve as an entry point for legislator’s obligation of reasoning, making its review steps and content clearer, categorizing review content according to different case types, or further combining it with existing legislative reason practices to enhance the function of legislative reasons.