頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 臺北市里長延任案與地方自治之探討--兼論司法院釋字第五五三號解釋=A Research on the Extension of Tenure in Office of the Precinct Chief of Taipei City and Local Autonomy |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳滄海; | 書刊名 | 臺北市立師範學院學報. 人文藝術類社會科學類科學教育類 |
卷 期 | 34 民92.09 |
頁 次 | 頁117-133 |
分類號 | 575.8232 |
關鍵詞 | 里長延任; 地方自治; 大法官解釋; 不確定法律概念; Postpone the election of precinct chief; Local autonomy; Constitutional interpretation to the grand justices; Uncertainty of legal concept; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 臺北市政府決定延後第八屆里長選舉,引發中央與地方在法律解釋與地方自治權限的爭議,臺北市政府乃聲請司法院大法官解釋。本文係針對本案事件經過、系爭要點、釋憲適格要件,以及其所衍生之不確定法律概念等問題,詳為探討,並對司法院大法官就此所作的釋字第五五三號解釋,予以論析。 經由研究,本文認為:(一)大法官指稱行政院撤銷臺北市政府延辦選舉之決定,涉及中央法規適用在地方自治事項具體個案之事實認定,屬行政處分,臺北市政府若有不服,應循行政爭訟處理,此項見解並未就地方制度法的若干法律爭議予以有效釐清,而難以達到定紛止爭的解釋憲法之目的;(二)有關地方制度法規定「特殊事故」得延選的不確定法律概念,此項解釋權宜歸屬於有權核准的機關,依此原則,當可解決相關權限之爭議;(三)依據地方自治原理,上級機關對於地方自治事項,僅有合法性監督,無合目的性監督,而辦理里長改選,行政院及臺北市政府均認可其為自治事項,因之,只要臺北市政府對於延後里長改選的程序符合法定要件,中央即不宜介入實質之運作。 要之,本文認為,臺北市政府基於地方自治之權能,具有「特殊事故」不確定法律概念之解釋權,至於因而與中央產生權限爭議之處理,自可依地方制度法向司法院聲請釋憲,而司法院大法官亦當應針對系爭法律規範問題以實質解釋解釋,而非僅以要求臺北市政府逕提行政爭訟為已足。 |
英文摘要 | The decision to postpone the election of the 8th Precinct Chief the Taipei City Government caused disputes over legal interpretation and powers of local autonomy between the central and local governments. Therefore the Taipei City Government sought for a constitutional interpretation to the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. This article analyzes thoroughly the processes of the case, points in contention, proper conditions of constitutional interpretation, and the consequential issue of uncertainty of legal concept. Furthermore, the relating Interpretation 553 made by the Grand Justices is studied meticulously. Conclusions of this study includes: (1) The Grand Justices stated that it was an administrative action that the Executive Yuan took to withdraw the Taipei City Government's decision to postpone the election, in that the action was a concrete case of factual affirmation which applied central law to local autonomous affairs. Therefore the Taipei City Government should have sought for administrative appeal if it disagreed. In this respect, the Grad Justices' judgment did not clarify effectively some legal arguments on Local System Law The purpose of solving wrangling by the constitutional interpretation was not achieved. (2) Regarding the uncertainty of legal concept resulted form the option to delay the election in case of "unusual circumstance" stipulated by the Local System Law, the explanation powers shall belong to the agency of the authorities. Disputes over relating powers could be solved according to the aforesaid principle. (3) According to principles of local autonomy, superior agency has only powers to supervise the "legitimacy", not the "purpose fitness", of local autonomous affairs. Since both the Executive Yuan and Taipei City Government agreed that the election of Precinct Chief was an autonomous affair, the Central Government should not have involved in the practical operation as long as the Taipei City Government took legitimate procedures to postpone the election. In short, basing upon the powers and capacities of local autonomy, the Taipei City Government has the explanation powers of uncertainty of legal concept regarding "unusual circumstance." As for the settlement of resulting disagreement of powers against to the Central Government, the City Government shall seek for a constitution interpretation to Judicial Yuan according to the Local System Law, and the Grand Justices shall substantially interpret the legal criterion in contention, instead of demanding the City Government to appeal administrative proceedings. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。