窮忙國家的未來—論我國社會救助法制

貧窮是古老的社會議題，我國對於處理貧窮之社會政策係以社會救助法為主要法源。社會救助法來自憲法對於實踐社會正義之要求，並且作為社會安全網之最後一道防線，係我國重要社會法制之一。本文則欲針對社會救助法提出三個問題意識：一、社會救助如何為憲法所保障？二、社會救助法所劃定之貧窮線標準係如何計算得知？三、強制人民工作之規定是否侵害人民工作權，以及此規定在社會政策目標上是否妥適？本文藉由整理我國社會救助法歷次修法過程之結果與草案內容，並與德國社會救助法制加以比較後，提出以下結論：一、我國憲法如同德國基本法有人性尊嚴、社會國原則之適用，惟社會基本權利並非基本權之一種，係屬一種基本權利與基本國策交互作用之價值組合，社會救助於此在憲法上獲得多層次之保障；二、德國聯邦憲法法院於2010年對第四部哈次法作成違憲宣告判決，其針對第二失業金之計算規則缺乏一致之邏輯而指摘立法程序不當，借鏡於此一判決結果，我國社會救助法之貧窮線標準亦宜於立法理由中說明計算標準，且計算標準應與時俱進更新，以符國際趨勢；三、強制工作規定基於合理分配社會資源之目的，尚難謂對工作權造成侵害，惟強制工作規定帶有「以工作換取福利」之道德內涵，在擁有工作不能保證脫貧之今日，此類規定應有檢討必要。

關鍵字

社會救助法；貧窮線；工作權；哈次法；第二失業金

並列摘要

Poverty is an ancient social issue. Our social policy for dealing with poverty is based on the Public Assistance Act. It comes from the constitutional requirements for the practice of social justice and serves as the last line of defense in the social-safety-net. It’s one of the most important social law system in Taiwan. This article intends to raise three issues of awareness for the Public Assistance Act: First, how can social assistance be guaranteed by the Constitution? Second, how does the poverty rate delineated by the Public Assistance Act be calculated? And third, are the provisions that compel people to work infringed upon the people’s right to not work and whether it appropriate in social policy ? After sorting out the results of the past revision process of the Public Assistance Act and the contents of the draft, and comparing it with the German legal system for social assistance, this article proposes the following conclusions: First, Constitution in Taiwan has similar to the application of the principles of human dignity and social state in the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), and the Social Basics Right is not a kind of the Basic Right, it’s a value-combination composed by the Basic Right of People and the Fundamental National Policies. Therefore, social assistance has multi-layered guaranteed in the Constitution; Second, reference to the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has a result of the unconstitutional declaration on Hartz IV (SGB II), the court refers that the lack of consistency on the calculation of the second unemployment benefit (UBII) accrues and the improper legislative process. According to this advice, the poverty rate of Taiwan’s Public Assistance Act should also explain the way of calculation of Taiwan’s povert rate, and should be calculated with times, in order to in line with the international trends; Third, the mandatory work requirements are based on the rational allocation of social resources, so it is difficult to say that the right to work is infringed, but the mandatory work requirements has a "Workfare” issue. Nowadays, since owning a job can’t guarantee the eradication of poverty, such provisions should be reviewed as necessary.