身心障礙者公職參與權之憲法保障及其界限─以考試制度及程序為中心

Protections and Its Limitations of Persons with Disabilities’ Constitutional Rights to Access to Public Service Positions: Focus on the Examination System and Procedure

許萃華(Tsui-Hua Hsu)

指導教授 ： 蔡宗珍

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201704177

摘要

本文乃從國家人事選任權力的定位作為切入，首先概觀人事選任權力在日本、法國與美國運作之方式，以及人事選任權力之特性，並提出我國人事選任權力運作面臨之特殊問題─「選」、「任」分離之運作困境，並在此前提下，進一步探討人事選任權力下人民的公職參與權利可能之樣貌，包含應考試與服公職權間之關係、以及公職參與權利限制合憲性審查上可能之考量因素，並主張應考試權利之限制應以程序機制之考量為主要理據，而不應將任用端的人事管理因素過度的前置化，導致消極應考資格過於浮濫的狀況。

其次本文將問題聚焦於身心障礙者於應考試制度與程序中所面臨之限制，並進一步分析身障特考下，身心障礙者實際獲得的公職參與程度，發現身障特考提供身心障礙者公職參與機會的現況面臨相當大的侷限性─身心障礙者以獲得低階公部門之職務為主。另一方面則分析在身障特考外之一般特考，其考試規則中關於應考資格、考試程序對身心障礙者所產生直接或間接之限制，並就各種特考中所設定之各種限制，分別探討其對於身心障礙者造成應考試權限制之合憲性。

關鍵字

身心障礙者 ； 公職參與權 ； 考試制度與程序 ； 人事選任權 ； 應考試權 ； 服公職權 ； 比例原則

並列摘要

This dissertation starts with an analysis of the power of public service recruitment, and also try to compare the differences of the power of public service recruitment in Japan, American, and France. And then, I find that the power of public service recruitment in Taiwan is very different from those countries I just mentioned above. Namely, the power of public service recruitment in Taiwan was separated and shared by the Legislative Yuan and Examination Yuan, which result in the problems of using that power. I also try to analyze people’s rights to access to public service positions, inclusive of the relations between rights to take examination and rights to hold public service. And then, I also discuss about those factors that may be taken into consider when making a judicial review. I hold that if there’s a limitation on protections of rights to take examination, it must be a factor that threaten the examination system and procedure. If not so, there would be too many negative qualifications that don’t have reasonable standings to restrain people’s rights to take examinations.

Second, I focus on the limitations on protections of rights to take examination that persons with disabilities faces in Taiwan. On one hand, I find that even in the examination only for people with disabilities to take, the protections are still very limited. Persons with disabilities get lower paid or lower level public service opportunities most of the time. On the other hand, in examinations not only for persons with disabilities, the examination system and procedure also has many regulations that restrict persons with disabilities from taking part in. Thus, I also try to review the constitutionality of those regulations.

並列關鍵字

Persons With Disabilities ； Rights to Access to Public Service Positions ； Examination System And Procedure ； Rights to Take Examinations ； Power of Public Service Recruitment ； Rights To Hold Public Service Positions ； Proportionality Principle

參考文獻

楊甯伃(2016)。《判斷餘地理論之發展與課題─以勞動法領域為中心》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究碩士論文，台北。

何華欽(2011)。〈輕度精神障礙者就業現況與需求調查：以高雄市為例〉，《台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊》，第1卷第2期，頁95- 124。

林明昕(2016)。〈基本國策之規範效力及其對社會正義之影響〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第45卷特刊，第1305頁至1358頁。

邱大昕(2011)。〈誰是身心障礙者：從身心障礙鑑定的演變看「國際健康功能與身心障礙分類系統」（ICF）的實施〉，《社會政策與社會工作學刊》，15卷2期，頁187-213。

孫迺翊(2016)。〈無障礙/可及性、合理調整與平等不歧視原則：從身心障礙者權利公約檢視我國憲法及身心障礙者權益保障法知平等原則內涵〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第45卷特刊，頁1163-1225。