原住民族教育權利的憲法建構

Abstract

1998年制定之原住民族教育法，由於立法過程中區分「一般教育」及「民族教育」的歷史偶然，以及該法施行後在規範與實踐的落差，致使憲法增修條文第10條規定之「依民族意願之原住民族教育」，至今仍無法回應台灣原住民族對於「找回教育權」、「延續民族命脈」的主張訴求。為了突破此一困境，本文以國民教育階段為討論重心，旨在從憲法觀點，提出原住民族教育權利之憲法解釋建構理論，一方面對於憲法第21條「原住民學習及受教育權」的實踐現況進行合憲性檢討，另一方面分析「原住民族教育集體權」的證成途徑，並闡釋此一原住民族個別性集體權之憲法基礎及權利內涵。在憲法的規範性理論基礎上，本文進一步引介「部落學校」政策及Pinuyumayan卑南族花環部落學校的實際運作情形，討論部落學校在原住民族教育權利實踐上的意義與侷限，同時提出原住民族教育法的修法建議及未來制度實踐的可能方向。

In 1998, the Legislative Yuan passed the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples. Due to the coincidental division of “general education” and “ethnic education” and the gap between norms and practice of the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples, the notion, “indigenous/aboriginal education in accordance with the will of the ethnic groups/peoples”, provided in Article 10 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution, still cannot respond to the demands on “regaining right to education” and “ensuring the continued survival” from indigenous peoples in Taiwan. This thesis focuses on the civil education and aims to suggest the constitutional interpretation and construction of indigenous peoples’ right to education. It, on one hand, examines the constitutionality of the practice of indigenous people’s individual right to learn and receive a civil education under Article 21 of the Constitution, on the other hand, presents the justifications of indigenous peoples’ collective right to education, including its constitutional basis and scope of protection. In terms of the constitutional theory, it further discusses the Tribal Schools policy and the case of Pinuyumayan Tribal Schools, points out its implications and limitations of indigenous peoples’ right to education. Accordingly, this thesis suggests that the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples shall be amended and provides some advises about institutional practice to fulfill the indigenous peoples’ right to education in the future.