物權法草案'違憲'了嗎？－－質疑鞏獻田教授的《公開信》

Is Property Law (Draft) Unconstitutional? --Question to Professor Gong Xiantian's Open Letter

鞏獻田教授《公開信》事件引起了廣泛的社會關注。《公開信》認為物權法草案違反了《憲法》第12條規定，是違憲的產物。但本文分析認為，《公開信》指責物權法草案「廢除」了《憲法》第12條關於「公共財產神聖不可侵犯」的規定，會動搖這一條規定所代表的生產資料的社會主義公有制基礎，是沒有實證根據的。物權法草案並不因為沒有重複《憲法》第12條關於「公共財產神聖不可侵犯」的條文而違憲，這一條規定也並不能代表生產資料的社會主義公有制；而說明和規定生產資料的社會主義公有制的實質性規範主要集中在《憲法》第6條至第11條。事實上，在實質內容方面，物權法草案幾乎是照抄照搬地援引了《憲法》有關社會主義公有制的一些規定。鞏教授《公開信》以物權法草案違憲為由，僅僅是通過危言聳聽的方式，表達他對改革開放過程中出現的貧富不均、國有資產流失與私有化現象的不滿，並試圖再次將社會財富主要集中在「國家」這一被神聖化的字眼之下，以此表達他的舊有的計畫體制政治願望。但他卻忽視了財產權作為一項基本人權的個體屬性，以及它在限制政治行為中的法治構建意義。因此，他是在一個錯誤的時機錯誤地選擇了一部法律草案而進行了一些錯誤的論述。民法學界目前對鞏教授《公開信》展開的回應中，沒有完全採取理性分析和實證研究的態度，還帶有一些感情色彩，並有再次將問題意識形態化的傾向。學術界應該以此次討論為契機，釐清支撐計畫體制的財產權理論，並為之敲響喪鐘，從而為民事立法掃清理論與思想上的障礙。

Professor Gong Xiantian’s Open Letter has invoked a national debate. In this letter, professor Gong argues that Property Law(Draft) is unconstitutional for it breaks Article 12 of the People’s Republic of China Constitutional Law. Through logical and empirical analysis, this paper comes to the conclusion that the Open Letter has no positive groundings in claiming that the Property Law(Draft) would weaken the socialist public ownership of the means of production by deleting the provision of Constitutional Law Article 12,'Public property is inviolable'. Property Law(Draft) is not unconstitutional, because it is not Article 12,but the articles 6 to 11,that regulate the socialist public ownership of the means of production. After a close look at the substantive contents of Property Law(Draft),I found that it has actually copied provisions about the socialist public ownership of the means of production from the Constitutional Law. By declaring 'the Property Law (Draft) is unconstitutional', Prof. Gong was in fact complaining about the imparity distribution of the wealth between the rich and the poor, loss of state-owned property and privatization, which have been progressing after China carried out the Reform and Open Policy. Professor Gong intends to transform the social wealth into state-owned subject matter, which is also an expression of his desire for the past planning system. But he has neglected the individual attribute of property right as one of the fundamental human rights. Therefore, he has been wrong with the bad timing, by selecting an unsuitable draft as a subject. Civil law scholars’ rebut, which is more emotional other than rational or practical, has the tendency of converting the discussion into an ideological debate. Chinese academia should not miss the chance to clearify the theoretical and ideological obstacles for civil law legislation by bringing into the theories of property which has been supporting the planning system to an end with a thorough analysis about them.