透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.156.48.192
  • 學位論文

高級中等學校學生行政救濟制度之研究

A Study on Administrative Remedies for Senior High School Students

指導教授 : 林明鏘

摘要


在過去的校園中,因特別權力關係理論的影響,在學生權利受到侵害時,無法提起行政救濟,自釋字第382號解釋開始,到釋字第684號、784號解釋逐步放寬提起救濟的範圍、身分。就範圍而言,從限於退學或類此處分,到學生只要權利受到侵害非顯屬輕微就可提起;就身分上,從過去限於大學生,開放至各級學校學生。從釋憲實務開放的趨勢可以看出,大法官逐步挑戰特別權力關係理論,讓校園能回歸法治國的「有權利即有救濟」之法理。 因應釋字第784號解釋的通過,在高中學生行政救濟領域,立法院也於2021年修正高級中等教育法第54條,確立高中學生行政救濟程序採「申訴-再申訴」單軌制,教育部也於2022年訂定「高級中等學校學生申訴及再申訴評議委員會組織及運作辦法」,對於學生行政救濟的各項程序有更細緻的規範,透過制度解決過去學生提起申訴所可能遇到的困難,以期能落實釋字第784號解釋之意旨,讓高中學生權利受到侵害時,有相應的管道可提出救濟,於提起救濟過程也有更完足正當法律程序的保障。 釋字第784號解釋中,對於學生權利侵害提出「顯然輕微」不得提起行政救濟之判準,且強調司法機關在進行審查時應尊重學校的「判斷餘地」,本文整理了釋字第784號解釋通過後,與高中學生權利救濟有關之行政爭訟案件,並將之分為獎懲事件、成績評定事件、性平事件、霸凌事件、其他事件等五類,並觀察於不同類型中,實務如何解釋適用顯然輕微的認定,及其審查學校行政行為之合法界線。 制度層面於近期修法後,已有相當之修正,然諸多課題仍待釐清,舉例而言,法院及再申訴機關之審議上,可能面臨「學生在學關係」、「校規」、「學校獎懲」等行政行為或法律關係於定性上之爭議,在過去特別權力關係理論框架下,無須有法律保留及定性上的討論,也因為沒有足夠實務案件,也相當難發展出穩定見解,本文透過整理教育法學界過去針對上述爭議問題之討論,並提出見解。 本文曾實際訪談了幾位曾在校園中提起權利救濟的高中學生,以及參與校內申訴評議制度運作之教師,更能精準掌握學生於權利救濟過程中,可能面臨到的阻礙及困難,而於學校端又有何顧慮與考量,透過訪談讓制度面與實務面有對話機會,能更找出問題的核心,與未來制度的修正方向以及配套措施該如何訂定。 學校對學生作成一個行政行為,而產生有侵害學生權利之可能,到後續學生提出之行政救濟,是一個階段性的過程。本文主要處理末端學生權利救濟之部分。然而,更核心之問題是如何減少校園內的權利侵害事件,若將整個過程比喻為一條河川,在上游學校校規、規範的訂定是否能合法,減少不合理的權利限制;在中游老師依校規及教育專業進行輔導管教也應有法治觀念,不應淪為恣意;在下游有完善的救濟,對於已經發生的權利侵害,給予學生及時填補及回復權利的可能,才能在各個階段面向上,讓學生權利保障得以完整兼顧。

並列摘要


In the past, due to the influence of the besonderes Gewaltverhältnis, in spite of the fact that students' rights were violated, they couldn’t file for administrative remedies. From J. Y. Interpretation No.382, to J. Y. Interpretation No.684 and No.784, it can be observed that the constraints on access to administrative remedies have been gradually loosened in two aspects: scope and identity. In terms of scope, students are able to file a request as long as any of their rights are violated while they were only in cases of being suspension of school or being classified as such; in terms of status, it has been limited to college students in the past, and is accessible to students at all levels of school. It has shown that the justification of the besonderes Gewaltverhältnis has been challenged, and hence the campus’ returning to the legal principle of "rights come with relief." In response to the passage of J. Y. Interpretation No.784, the Legislative Yuan amended Article 54 of the Senior High School Education Act in 2021, establishing the single-track system of "appeal-reappeal" for administrative remedies procedures for high school students. In 2022, the Ministry of Education formulates "Organization and Operational Measures of the Student Appeal and Re-appeal Review Committee of Senior High Schools", with more details on the various procedures for students' administrative remedies. The system solves the difficulties, that students may have encountered when filing the appeal in the past, implementing the subject of J. Y. Interpretation No.784. When the rights of high school students are violated, there are corresponding channels for remedies, and the process of filing remedies has more complete protection of due legal process. In J. Y. Interpretation No.784, the "obviously minor" violation of the rights shall not be subject to administrative remedies, and it is emphasized that the judiciary should respect the school's " margin of appreciation" when conducting the review. This article collects and organizes the cases after the J. Y. Interpretation No.784 is passed. The administrative remedies related to high school students are divided into five categories: reward and penalize incidents, grading incidents, sexual harassment, assault and abuse incidents, bullying incidents, and other incidents. This article tries to explain how the application of obviously minor violations and its legal boundaries for reviewing school administrative actions. After the recent revision of the law, considerable amendments have been made, but many issues still need to be clarified. For example, the legal characterization of "student-student relationship", "school rules", "school rewards and penalize". In the past, under the besonderes Gewaltverhältnis, there were not enough practical cases, and it was quite difficult to develop a stable legal interpretation. This article tries to collect the discussion of the above-mentioned controversial issues and offered my opinions. In this article, I also interviewed several high school students who have experience filing administrative remedies, as well as teachers who participated in the committee of the school’s appeal and system. Through the interview, it can grasp the obstacles and difficulties students may face in the process of rights relief procedure more accurately, trying to find out the core of the problem, the direction of future system revision, and how to formulate supporting measures. It is a staged process where the school makes an administrative act on the student, which may violate the student's rights, to the subsequent administrative remedies proposed by the student. This article mainly deals with the latter part. However, the core issue is how to reduce rights violations. The whole process could be a river, and whether the school regulations could reduce unreasonable restrictions is upstream; whether teachers have the concept of the rule of law is the middle stream; whether there could be considerable remedies measures is downstream. Only when each stage is fully functional can the protection of students' rights be completed.

參考文獻


吳庚、盛子龍(2020),《行政法之理論與實用》,增訂16版。臺北:三民。
李仁淼(2020),《教育法與教育人權》,二版,臺北:元照。
李惠宗(2004),《教育行政法要義》,初版,臺北:元照。
林明鏘(2021),《行政法講義》,修訂六版,臺北:新學林。
莊國榮(2020),《行政法》,修訂七版,臺北:元照。

延伸閱讀