蔡維音

Wei-In Tsai

社會基本權、憲法解釋方法、基礎生存保障、審查密度、可司法性

Social Rights, Methods of Constitutional Interpretation, Minimum of Subsistence, Intensity for Constitutional Review, Justiciability

本文主題為「社會權主張可能性」理論之深化建構，以及其於訴訟案例操作之分析。透過國際上社會請求權在司法上主張的比較考察，搜集到與立論可相呼應的觀點與論據，並可對原立論加以補強。也可更確信地呼籲司法工作者:不需過於迅速地格於權力分立框架而從保護人民生存基礎的防護線上退卻，本文透過建立一個安定的釋義學架構，提供訴訟上可以選擇的各種應對模式，把採取積極司法態度的正當性依據與審查密度的衡量結合起來，動態地判定法院所可能採取之裁判模式。經由貼近事實的觀察，積極於個案中斟酌其所處歷史、社會情境，法院可以選擇採取傳統防禦權審查、法律補充或是對於政府施政說理的程序正當性檢驗。透過這樣類型化與透明化的建構，希望提高司法實務操作上的穩定性，降低社會基本權被過度主張之疑慮。

The main theme of this article is the deepening construction of the “Theory of Justiciability of Social Rights” and its analysis in the context of litigation cases. Through a comparative examination of the judicial assertion of international social claims, viewpoints and arguments have been gathered that resonate with the theory, which can strengthen the original arguments. It can also serve as a more confident appeal to judicial professionals: there is no need to hastily confine themselves within the framework of the separation of powers, but instead maintain the defense line of safeguarding the basic living conditions of the people. The author’s purpose is to establish a stable hermeneutical framework that provides various response models available in litigation. This framework combines the legitimacy of adopting a proactive judicial attitude with the assessment of intensity for constitutional review, dynamically determining the possible judicial judgement patterns. Through a close examination of the facts and considering the historical and social context in which a case resides, the court can choose between traditional right-defensing mode, legal supplementation, or a legitimacy assessment of government policy implementation procedures. Through such typification and transparency, the goal is to enhance the stability of judicial practice and reduce concerns about excessive claims of fundamental rights in society. The Taipei High Administrative Court took a proactive stance by determining that the administrative agency’s self- established benefit rules were in violation. This decision has generated significant repercussions. However, when examined within the hermeneutical framework proposed by the author, it becomes clear that the judgment is based on a solid foundation. The court, by employing a higher level of scrutiny in the context of a rights-based review, pointed out not only the procedural illegality of the original administrative decision for failing to conduct a case assessment in accordance with the parent law but also emphasized that the administrative agency should assist individuals with disabilities in integrating and accessing fragmented care resources. All of these aspects contribute to enhancing the quality of relevant care benefit determinations.