民意代表選出方式的性別積極平權措施：談憲法上的性別平等與民主理論

Gender Affirmative Action for Legislative Representatives: Gender Equality and Democratic Theory in Taiwan Constitution

張喬婷(Chiao-Ting Chang)

指導教授 ： 黃昭元

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.00699

摘要

本論文的主要目的，在於重新檢視我國法學論述近15年來反對民意代表選出方式性別積極平權措施的依據，並在我國憲法架構之下，闡釋此種措施與我國性別實質平等觀和參與式民主觀之間的關係。
近幾十年來，在國際社會當中，將女性民意代表代表不足視為歧視和排除的結果，是不平等與不民主的展現，各國政府積極採取措施來彌平此等不足，目前世界上已有超過100個以上的國家和政黨採取了民意代表選出方式的性別積極平權措施。此種措施雖在英國法院、法國憲法委員會遭遇挫折，卻因此引發英國修改法律和法國修改憲法，來容許此種措施、解決此種措施合憲性的爭議。
我國憲法雖自立憲之初即有婦女保障名額的規定，卻未能使得此種措施的相關爭議落幕：近15年來，政治學界和民間性別平權運動團體卻著眼於目前保障比例過低，無法發揮實效，而倡議此種措施的改進；與此同時，法律學者紛紛從立憲論的層面，主張此種措施應予廢除。
法律學界主要反對民意代表選出方式性別積極平權措施的理由有三，分為事實層面的理解和規範價值的評價兩個層次。在事實層面的理解部分，法律學界主張台灣社會性別已經平等，以及女性民意代表不足並非結構性歧視所致。規範價值的評價，包含認為此種措施違反憲法性別平等，以及違反憲法民主原則兩部分。在前者，法律學說主張我國憲法平等權不保障事實上平等、僅保障個人、機會的平等，民意代表選出方式的性別積極平權措施追求事實平等的實現、保障團體、結果的平等，故不符合我國憲法平等權意旨。在後者。法律學說主張憲法民主原則為票票等值和多數決，此種措施不符此二原則，違反憲法的民主原則。
關於事實層面的理解，鑑於法律作為一門規範學，我國的法學研究卻很少嚴肅面對事實究竟為何的理解，本文引入了實證資料，證立我國目前性別結構仍然嚴重傾斜，女性民意代表長久以來代表不足，即是因為此種結構性歧視所致。結構性歧視跨越了個人，亦非個人努力所能有效扭轉，因此需要透過審慎的制度設計，來克服此種結構性歧視，向性別平等的社會實質跨進。
形式平等觀在面對社會歧視時，認為法律的相同對待視同為平等，將法律上的不同對待視同為歧視。然而，實質平等觀批評形式平等觀忽視了法律上的相同對待在性別結構失衡的社會當中，只是在維持現有結構優勢者的地位，欠缺對於現實狀況不平等的挑戰。我國憲法自始即採取實質平等觀，要求國家要認識現實社狀況的不平等，並採取積極措施來消弭此種不平等，使得社會上的人民得以真正因為憲法平等權的宣示而享受相同的尊重與尊嚴。即使如同學說上主張我國憲法平等權是在追求個人機會平等，我國憲法的立憲、歷屆修憲過程以及憲法文字的規範架構，也已經清楚宣示：民意代表選出方式性別積極平權措施正是實現此種平等理念的適宜手段。
此外，民主原則除了形式平等的票票等值與多數決以外，也重視多元與參與。在近代審議式民主觀的理解底下，民主的深化在於審議與思辨以獲得決策正當性的過程；而要獲得真正的審議與思辨，便必須使得社會當中多元的觀點都得以在政治決策過程當中被聽見、被考慮。因此，在權力結構不均的社會底下，我們希望得以適當的制度設計，開啟政治平等和社會平等良性循環，便應該使得原本被排除於政治場域之外的團體得以被納入、平等地政治場域當中發聲、參與決策的討論。我國憲法雖未言明其民主觀，但從憲法與民主相關的制度設計，即可推知我國憲法在重視國會多元觀點的參與，與當代審議式民主觀接軌。我國實證經驗上也證實，女性民意代表在政治場域當中的現身，改變了原本由男性獨佔的國會議程，使國會的關懷更關照到全民的需求；女性民意代表由於其與社會性別結構失衡下的女性選民的感同身受，致使我國女性民意代表在性別相關法案當中貢獻良多，應證了存在政治與觀點代表理論，也實現該理論所欲追求的政治平等與社會平等互相增強的目標。
事實上，實質平等與重視參與的民主觀，在我國憲法底下並不是兩個獨立不相關的概念或是原則；它們都指出我國憲法重視社會現實的不平等，並希望藉由憲法等相關制度設計，來解決此種結構性不平等所造成的歧視和排除。其中，我國憲法特別關懷民主過程當中，此種歧視和排除所造成的社會不平等和政治不平等的惡性循環，並透過憲法相關制度設計，致力於彌平此種不平等。民意代表選出方式的性別積極平權措施，正是我國憲法對於性別採取實質平等觀，以及對於民主原則採取參與式民主觀的交集與展現。

關鍵字

婦女保障名額 ； 性別比例原則 ； 性別平等 ； 實質平等 ； 審議式民主 ； 積極平權措施 ； 優惠性差別待遇

並列摘要

The objective of my thesis is to review the arguments in Taiwan which oppose gender quota of legislative representatives. I try to reconstruct the relations between this measure, substantial equality and participantory democracy under the Taiwan constitution.
Recently, the international society regards the phenomenon of under-representative of women in legislator as the consequence of discrimination and exclusion, and thinks this means the inadequacy of equality and democracy. Many governments take positive measures to change the situation, and until now, there are over 100 countries and political parties have gender quota for legislative representatives. Although British court and French Constitutional Council announced this type of affirmative action invalid, the opinion of the judges brought about the amendments of British law and French Constitution to allow this measure and solved the related disputations.
The gender quota of legislative representatives has been part of our constitution since the establishment, but this truth does not end the discussion of the measure. Political scholars and organizations pursuing for gender equality in non-governmental circles advocate that the truth that the proportion of our female legislators has outnumbered the gender quota in the law and constitution means this measure cannot have its effect now, and therefore this measure should be improved. On the contrary, in the latest 15 years, law scholars argued against gender quota of legislative representatives.
There are three reasons for the abolishment of gender quota of legislative representatives. The first is about the understanding of the truth. The law scholars think that there is no gender inequality in Taiwan, and under-representative of female legislators is not the result of systematic discrimination. The second reason is that law scholars think that this type of affirmative action violate the principle of gender equality in the constitution. They think the principle of gender equality in the constitution does not include the fulfillment of social equality, and just pursue the equality of individual opportunities. Gender quota of legislative representatives aims at seeking for de facto, group, and result equality, and is not in the scope of constitution prorection. The third reasons is that law scholars think that the principle of democracy in the constitution means equal vote and majority, and gender quota of legislative representatives does not conform to this kind of democracy.
Althought the science of law belongs normative study, the tradition of jurisprudence in Taiwan usually ignores the understanding of the reality. Therefore my thesis tries to contend through empirical data to prove that the gender structure of Taiwan society is still highly imbalanced, and this causes under-representaive of female legislators. The systematic discrimination transcends individuals, and we need to overcome this systematic discrimination via prudent institutional design to get on for a more equal society.
Facing social discrimination, formal equality views equality as the same treatment, and views different treatments as discriminatory. However, substantial equality criticizes that formal equality neglects that the same treatment in an unequal society only perserves the status quo of the privileged, and does not challenge the unjust power structure. Our constitution stands for substantial equality from the beginning. Our constitution asks our nation to recognize the unequal reality, and to take affirmative action to eliminate discrimination to make sure that our people could enjoy genuine respect and dignity which our constitution declares that everyone deserves. Even if we accept that our constitution aims at the equality of individual opportunities, the process of the development and the text of our constitution indicate that our constitution thinks that gender quota of legislative representatives is suitable for the fulfillment of this kind of equality.
Besides equal vote and majority, the content of democracy includes diviversity and participation. In terms of deliberative democracy, the deepening of democracy lies in the process of gaining the legitimacy of political decision through deliberation and speculation. If we want genuine deliberation and speculation, pluralistic perspectives in our society must be heard and taken in to consideration in the process of political decision. Hence, we should redesign the institutional mechanism to include the excluded social group and let them be able to voice for themselves equally in the political arena. The adequate measure is the turning point leading us to a society in which social equality and political equality could reinforce each other. We can infer from the regulations relating to democracy in our constitution that diversity and participation play an important role in the understanding of democracy in our constitution. Our empirical data shows that the presence of female representatives has changed the agenda of the Congress. Identifying with other women in the same unequal gender power structure, the female legislators have made significant contributions during the formulation of gender-related acts. The story of the hardworking and colleberation of female legislators manifest the theory of the politics of presence of Anne Phillips and the theory of perspective representation of Iris Young, and achieve the goal of reinforcing social equality and political equality of the two theories.
In Fact, substantial equality and participantory democracy are not independent concepts under our constitution. They both indicate that our constitution is concerned with social inequality, and hopes to resolve this kind of discrimination and exclusion through law. The vicious circle between social inequality and political inequality is one of the main issue that our constitutiton takes seriously and want to take positive measure to smooth away. Gender quota of legislative representatives is the intersectional consequence of the approach of substantial equality and participatory democracy under Taiwan constitution.

並列關鍵字

gender quota ； affirmative action ； positive action ； substantial equality ； gender equality deliberative democracy

參考文獻

黃舒芃（2007），多元民主中的自由保障--Hans Kelsen的多元主義民主觀暨其對議會與憲法法院的證立，政大法學評論，第96期，頁57-98。

梁雙蓮、朱浤源（1993），從溫室到自立：臺灣女性省議員當選因素初探(1951-1989)，近代中國婦女史研究，第1期，頁91-124。

黃昭元（2008），平等權審查標準的選擇問題：兼論比例原則在平等權審查上的適用可能，台大法學論叢，第37卷第4期，頁253-284。

邱文聰（2008），被忽略的(立法)事實--探詢實證科學在規範論證中的可能角色兼評釋字第584號解釋，《台大法學論叢》，第37卷第2期，頁233-284。

孫迺翊（2006），憲法解釋與社會保險制度之建構- 以社會保險「相互性」關係為中心，台大法學論叢, 第35卷第6期，頁241-290。