羅爾斯觀點下的釋字第五八０號解釋

Abstract

我國憲法第十五條明文規定：「人民之生存權、工作權及財產權，應予保障。」因此，根據憲法第十五條規定，財產權是屬於憲法位階的權利。財產權之所以必須加以保護，不外乎是為了「維持人性尊嚴所必須之生活上的物質保障」、「有助於人民的人格自由發展」或者是其他的社會功能。有疑問地是，財產權究竟如何保障、財產權必須保障到什麼程度、國家可以在什麼情形下限制人民的財產權，以及財產權的保障與財產權的限制之間如何調和、如何解釋，在我國憲法的規定中完全付之闕如。 筆者在本文中，有意採取羅爾斯（John Rawls）在《正義論》（A Theory of Justice）中所提出的觀點，來觀察我國大法官在釋字第五八０號解釋中所提及有關財產權理論的論述，藉此澄清財產權保障的目的、財產權的限制，以及這兩者之間的關係。 釋字第五八０號解釋主要的內容是在判斷，耕地三七五減租條例是否抵觸憲法保障財產權的規定而發生違憲的問題。根據大法官在釋字第五八０號的見解，大法官認為，僅耕地三七五減租條例第十九條第三項之規定違憲，其餘條文均為合憲之規定。然而，若從羅爾斯的「資源---效益」或「基本善---效益」的角度出發，重新分析耕地三七五減租條例，則會發現耕地三七五減租條例是一個無效率且不平等的法律規範，應該加以廢止或修法。 從羅爾斯的觀點出發所得出的結論，與大法官在釋字第五八０號所陳述的意見相比較，不難發現，這兩者的結論可謂大相逕庭，筆者以為原因在於，司法機關忽略了法律規範的階段性、時效性的問題，且司法機關對於資源重新分配採取了過於寬鬆的審查密度所致。

According to Article 15 of the Constitution, property right of a citizen is expressly guaranteed. Why property right should be protected under the Constitution is for the sake that owning property helps to maintain human dignity, to contribute to freedom development of individual personality, and to serve other functions socially. On one hand, how and to what degree property right should be protected is still unclear. Even if property right is a constitutional right, on the other hand, it doesn’t mean there’s no boundary. What often haunts us is that where the boundary lies. The question we encounter mentioned above is how to make clear the content and the constraint of property right. The answer to it, however, can not be found in our constitutional law. In this paper, I would attempt to make the question explicit by adopting Rawlsian viewpoint developed in A Theory of Justice. Subsequently, comparison would be made between the theory of property right put forth by Honorable Justices in J. Y. Interpretation No. 580 and the Rawlsian opinion on property right in A Theory of Justice J. Y. Interpretation No. 580 is mainly about whether The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act would be in violation of the Constitution. Based on what is said in J. Y. Interpretation No. 580., only Article 19, Section 3 of The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act is unconstitutional and other articles are constitutional. From the viewpoint of “resource---utility” or “primary goods---utility” developed by Rawls, in contrast, The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act would be termed as inefficient and unfair and would need rectification or abolishment. It is not hard to find that a big difference exits between what Honorable Justices and Rawls say. According to my opinion, Honorable Justices’ neglect of aging time and too lax scrutiny of laws concerning the distribution of resources lead to this great difference.