從大學自治之本質論退學制度－兼評大法官釋字第五六三號解釋

勒令退學之類型可區分爲「淘汰性質的退學」、「懲戒性質的退學」以及「其他原因的退學」三類若按其法律性質，則退學可區分爲「裁罰性之不利處分」與「單純授益行政處分之廢止」兩種。惟無論其性質如何，退學處分都侵害大學生之「學習自由」。釋字第五六三號解釋認爲學習自由來自於憲法第十一條之講學自由。但本文認爲學習自由並非講學自由之保障範圍，而是憲法第十五條「工作權」之保陣範圍。憲法第十一條之講學自由保障的是「講學」自由，而不是「講」與「學」自由。此外，通說認爲大學自治屬於憲法第十一條講學自由的「制度隨保障」。本文認爲，「大學自治」是制度，「講學自由」是基本權。大學享有學術自由之基本權，與大學之享有自治權，是不同層次的問題。憲法第十一條所保障的是「講學自由」的基本權，而非大學自治的制度。而且，我國的大學自治並非憲法保障，而是法律保障之自治。大學自治爲自治行政之一環，而其本質則爲三權分立下之行政權。一般文獻探討大學自治時，均不區分公私立大學。本文認爲，我國私立大學屬於私法自治(Privatautonomie)的領域，私立大學不可能享有「自治行政權」。而我國公立大學爲行政機關，不具備法人格，僅因大學任之規定而享有自治權。我國大學章則之性質如何，亦應區分公私立大學觀察現制公立大學因享有自治權，故其所制訂章則爲「自治規章」；私立大學在受委託行使公權力之範圍內所制訂之章則，應爲行政命令。准我國大學章則，無論其性質是自治規章還是行政命令，若無法律之授權都不能限制人民的基本權。退學制度涉及基本權之限制，故應有法律保留原則之適用，並應符合授權明確原則。

關鍵字

退學；開除學籍；學術自由；學習自由；大學自治；自治行政；大學章則；自治規章；法律保留原則；授權明確原則

並列摘要

Expulsion can be divided into three types: ”eliminative expulsion,” ”disciplinary expulsion,” and ”expulsion of other reasons.” Based on its legal nature, it can also be divided into ”punitive administrative act” and ”abolishment of beneficial administrative act.” No matter what its nature is, expulsion infringes upon the ”freedom of study”. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.563 considers freedom of study originated from freedom of teaching under Art.11 of the Constitution. In this study, however, it is believed that freedom of study is beyond the scope of the protection of freedom of teaching. Instead, it's protected by ”the right of work” under Art. 15 of the Constitution. In addition, it is generally believed that university self-administration belongs to the ”institutional guarantee” of freedom of teaching under Art. 11 of the Constitution. In this study, ”university self-administration” is a institution, while ”freedom of science” is constitutional right. Having the constitutional right of freedom of science and having self-administration are questions of different levels. Art 11 of the Constitution ensures the constitutional right of ”freedom of science,” not the institution of university self-administration. Furthermore, in our nation, university self- administration is not assured in the Constitution. It’s protected by the law. University self-administration is a part of self-administration, and it belongs to the administrative power under separation of powers. Justices of the Constitutional Court and scholars believe that universities all have the ”right of self-administration,” whether they are public or private. In this study, it is argued that private universities belong to the domain of private autonomy. It is impossible for private universities to have the ”right of self-administration.” Public universities are administrative agencies which do not have juridical personality. Based on the University Act, they merely have the right of self-administration. To determine the nature of university regulations, we should observe public and private universities separately. According to the present institution, public universities have the right of self-administration, so the regulations they constitute are ”autonomous regulations.” The regulations private universities are delegated to constitute within the scope of exercising public authority should be administrative ordinances. University regulations cannot restrict people’s constitutional rights without authorization by law, whether their natures are autonomous regulations or administrative ordinances. Tile institution of expulsion restricts constitutional rights. Therefore, the principle of legal reservation should apply to it, and it should furthermore conform to the principle of clarity and definiteness.

並列關鍵字

expulsion ； freedom of science ； freedom of study ； university self-administration ； self-administration ； university regulations ； autonomous regulations ； principle of legal reservation ； principle of clarity and d