查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 授權明確性原則的迷思與挑戰:美國立法授權合憲界限之討論對釋字五二四號解釋與全民健保的啟示=The Myth and Challenge of Nondelegation Doctrine: The Lesson of U.S Experience for Taiwan's Grand Justice's No.524 Constitutional Interpretation and National Health Insurance |
---|---|
作 者 | 雷文玫; | 書刊名 | 政大法學評論 |
卷期 | 79 2004.06[民93.06] |
頁次 | 頁53-114 |
分類號 | 412.56 |
關鍵詞 | 授權明確性; 美國禁止授權原則; 釋字五二四號解釋; 全民健保; 給付範圍; 法律明確性; 行政立法; 行政命令; 權力分立; National health insurance; Coverage; Constitutional interpretation no.524; Check and balance; Doctrine of non-delegation; Intelligible principle; Rulemaking; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 釋字五二四號解釋所牽涉的立法授權界限問題,涉及現代行政國家貫徹權力分立原則的難題:究竟立法者對於行政立法授權的界限,應該如何拿捏,才能兼顧權力分立原則下,最高民意機關應該肩負的價值抉擇的責任,以及現代行政國家的細密龐雜任務所需的迅速與大量立法?針對這個問題,美國近年來的相關討論有兩個啟示:首先,授權明確原則仰賴「明確」程度來貫徹立法者在民主政治的決策責任,過於模糊而難以執行,倘若執行不當,將造成大法官違憲審查的恣意專斷,與立法機關的無所適從,倘若如此,還不如執行其他實質上也構成立法授權界限的實體或程序原則。其次,有鑑於現代行政國家任務的細密分工,與其囿於形式的傳動帶理論,冀望由立法決策實現民主政治的課責機制,不如強化行政機關的民主參與,反而更有助於實現課責機制。 在這樣的背景之下,這篇文章以我國全民健保專業官僚的立法與行政文化,企圖凸顯分析大法官捍衛全民健保民主決策的獨特社會意義。但這篇文章也企圖說明,嚴格堅持「傳動帶理論」式的法律明確與授權明確,不但可能無法充分達到大法官的目的,也僅是重申了形式的法治主義:授權明確性。美國有關立法授權界限的的啟示因此是,強化健保行政決策的民主參與,有助於補強立法概括授權立法民主正當性的不足。因此,倘若積極詮釋該號解釋,透過釐清健保給付範圍決策架構與法律保留原則,大法官有機會可以強化民眾的公共參與,實踐全民健保保障民眾就醫權益的理念。 |
英文摘要 | The Grand Justices' No. 524 Constitutional Interpretation recently tackled the challenge of every modem administrative state: how should one maintain the check and balance principle between the legislature and the administration when the former is increasingly delegating its legislative power to the latter in more and more complicated public policies? Recent debate in the U.S. provides two lessons: first, the doctrine of nondelegation relied on intelligible principle to hold the legislature to their responsibility for legislation has been proven too vague to enforce, and if enforced strictly, will led to arbitrary judicial intervention. Under this constraint, other substantive doctrines are preferable to the formalistic doctrine of nondelegation. Second, as the modem administrative state's mission complicates, instead of holding on to a formalistic transmission belt theory that counts on the legislature to realize the ideal of democracy, enhancing citizen participation in administrative rulemaking might be more fruitful. With this backdrop, this article examines the unique significance of the Grand Justices' recent Constitutional Interpretation no. 524 against the national health insurance's bureaucracy and legislation that is permeated with professional influences, and contends that by striking down the relative rules as unconstitutional, the Grand Justices have highlighted the priority of democracy in national health insurance's policy- making process. However, through introducing the U.S.' lesson, this article also argues for a significant enhancement of citizen participation in administrative rulemaking, which can shore up the democratic legitimacy that administrative agencies lack. Thus, by insisting upon democratic accountability in the national health insurance policy-making, Grand Justices' interpretation also implies an opportunity to strengthen the citizen participation in administrative rulemaking and make national health insurance truly belong to the public. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。