- 期刊
論地方自治事項之「地域」要素
On the "territorial" element of local self-government matters
摘要
憲法第111條規定事務有全國一致之性質者屬於中央，有一縣之性質者屬於縣。基此，判斷一事項是否為縣之地方自治事項，首在於該事項必須先具備有一縣之地域性要素。「地域」之概念理解，並不以根源於地方為必要，亦不以其作用或影響不具跨域效力為限。毋寧，只要一事項依其事物本質，與特定地域住民所組成之生活共同體具密切且特殊關聯性者，即為已足。在此理解下，憲法法庭111年憲判字第6號判決所採行之地域封閉性基準，容有商榷餘地。一事項一旦客觀上具有地域關聯性，地方自治團體原則上對其即享有自負責任立法並執行之權限。立法者若欲將其劃歸由中央統一規範，在我國憲法架構下雖不禁止，但應有正當事由，並應顧及受特別波及之地方自治團體的利益。
並列摘要
Article 111 of the Constitution stipulates that if a matter is national in nature falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Government, while a matter concerns the county, belongs to the county. Thus, it is essential to distinguish the territorial element of the county first, then to consider the matter to be a local self-government matter. The concept of "territoriality" is not necessarily to be perceived to be locally rooted, nor is it necessary that its effects or influences to be non-transboundary. Rather, it is sufficient when a matter is, by its very nature, closely and specifically related to the community of life of the inhabitants of a particular territory. Under this perception, the test examining the transboundary influences and effects that the matter may bring, adopted by the Constitutional Court in its 6^(th) judgement in the year of 2022 (111 Hsien-Pan-6), is yet open to question. Once a matter is objectively territorially connected, the local self-governing body has in principle the competence to legislate and enforce it on its own responsibility. If the legislator wishes to place it under Central Government's jurisdiction, this is not prohibited under our constitutional framework, but it should be done for legitimate reasons, taking into account the interests of the local self-governing bodies that are particularly affected.