由憲法保障私人興學論國家對私立大學之監督

Abstract

全球化已引領世界各國高等教育政策生態的改變，然而我國在處理高等教育議題或預算分配上，仍著重在國立大學部分，幾少從私立大學的角度出發，形成在高等教育階段公私失衡的情形，事實上我國的高等教育發展模式已經從「菁英式」走向「普及化」，而不管在學校數或學生數上私立大學已占約六成五以上，足見其在高等教育階段有極高之依存度，實應擔負更重大的教育責任與得到國家更多關注。 然而我國政府與私立學校間的互動關係卻常為人們所詬病，2008年私立學校法修正前之法制設計幾屬「財團法人制度」中被最嚴格監督的類型，使得私立學校直如教育部之下屬機關，而法制設計縱有許多防免機制，私校經營卻普遍仍是問題重重，足見法令規章與實際執行已產生嚴重落差。2008年1月16日私校法修正通過，原則上對各種監督予以鬆綁。 有鑑於憲政國家所保障的人權，須賴法律制度及憲法的人權理念相互配合才能妥當達成目的，人權是憲法學上的重要制度，必須予以縝密剖析，始得在日趨複雜的社會及實證法體系中，尋得其崇高地位。惟立法者在實際立法過程中基於社會發展、參與立法程序者的政治理念、黨團協商折衝或預算資源分配等因素考量，往往更甚於憲法價值秩序的考量，從而憲法的框架性很容易被忽略，以致行政實效原則與法治國家憲法秩序原則常有落差。關於憲法的權利保障得否在私立大學具體落實，國家的角色定位攸關重大，因此本論文從「憲法保障人民基本權」的視角來檢視國家對私立大學各項監督之正當性與合理性，並參考其他國家相關制度加以衡量。 首先在私人興學之憲法保障章中從教育憲法保障體系的觀點作整體意義之詮釋，將憲法保障人性尊嚴、人格發展自由、講學自由、受教育權及基本國策中對私人經營教育事業應予奬補助，均視為對私人興學的教育憲法保障體系之一環，使其適用有關基本權的理念加以保障與限制。在國家介入私人興學之自由權章中，確認私人興學有別於公立學校之辦學型態，具有獨立自主發展的特性，應得享有充分組織自主、人事自主與財政自主，以展現彈性與活力，達成其存立目的；國家除了保障該自由權的原始要求外，應更進一步保障其分享國家給付的要求，屬於國家權力部分則應謹守為達重要公益目的，且符合比例原則之手段，以確實維護與落實憲政主義之精神。在私立大學自治與國家權力分際及基本權衝突問題章中就私立大學之學術自由、大學自治與宗教自由等基本權與國家權力分際建立判準，此外對基本權衝突問題建立抽象的利益衡量，使基本權衝突的各方均能實現其最大基本權。在對私立大學各種監督措施之憲法秩序探討章中則就現制學校法人內部監督、財務監督、大學退場與合併監督及校務運作等各種監督措施之憲法性支持逐一探討，期能在合於憲法制度精神下辨明國家權力與私人興學的權利分際，作為未來改進我國法制之參考。

The globalization has led countries demographic change of higher education policy in the world. But in terms of the issues of higher education or the distribution of the budget, our country is still focused on National Universities rather than private universities. As a result, there is the imbalance between public and private universities. As the matter of fact, Taiwan''s development model of higher education has been changed from "elite mode" to "universal mode" regardless of the number of university or students of private universities represents more than 65 percent of the total. Therefore, the responsibilities of private universities in the higher education system should deserve more concerns. However, the interaction between Taiwan''s government and private schools has often been criticized. Before the private school law to be amended in 2008, private schools under the "foundation system" have been most stringently supervised, which makes private schools as subordinate bodies of the Ministry of Education. Despite the law has its preventive mechanism, the operations of private schools in general are still serious problems. This evidences that there are serious gaps between the law and the practice. In January 16, 2008 the private school law was amendment and private schools are free from more supervisions in general. In light with the constitutional protection of human rights, we have to rely on the legal system and the concept of human rights in the Constitution in order to meet the objection. The human right is an important system in the constitution. We must carefully analyze it to maintain its subtle position under the increasingly complex social system and the empirical method. However, legislators in the legislative process regarding the social development, legislators’ political idea, negotiation of political parties and allocation of resources represent more importance over the constitution in various aspects. Thus, the framework of the Constitution is easily overlooked. As a result, the gap between the effectiveness of the administrative principles and the law principles often exists. As to how to formalize the constitutional protection over private universalities, the government plays an important role. Therefore, this paper has the intensive review of the justification and reasonableness over the constitutional protection of human basic rights in Taiwan as well as other countries. First of all, in the chapter of the Constitutional protections for private universities, it gives the interpretation as a whole from the view points of education and Constitution security system. It regards the Constitutional security for human dignity, the freedom of personality development, the freedom to teaching, the right to education and the award and grant to private education in the fundamental national policies as one role of the education Constitution’s security to guarantee and limit their concept that applicable to the basic rights. In the chapter of state intervention in the private schools, it confirmed that private schools are different from public schools in their types of operations. With the feature of independent development, the private school is entitled to have fully autonomy in the organization, personnel matters and finance in order to show flexibility and vitality for reaching its purpose. In addition to protect their original demands for the right to freedom, countries should also protect their demands for sharing the national payment. While the state power should keep the purpose of important public interests, and means in concur with the principle of proportionality in order to maintain and implement the spirit of constitutionalism. In the chapter of the border and basic rights conflict problem of private university autonomy and state power, it established the judgments between basic rights such as the private university''s academic freedom, university autonomy and the right to freedom of religion etc. Moreover, it established the abstract measurements of benefit for the problem of basic right conflict, which enables every aspects of basic rights conflict to implement their biggest basic rights. In the chapter of the constitutional order discussion about measure types of supervision on private universities, it discuss the constitutionality of the supervision on school’s internal affairs, finance, exit and merging, university operation and other measures of supervision in order to identify the rights border between state power and private schools under the spirit of the constitution and taking them as models for improving Taiwanese laws.