從憲法平等權違憲審查基準評析原住民族教育法第25條立法之合理性--兼論釋字第七一九號解釋

From the Constitutional Review Reference of Constitutional Equal Right to Analyze Education Act for Indigenous Peoples Article 25 Legislation Rationality—And Discussed J. Y. Interpretation No.719

在平等原則之下，國家為肯定多元文化及為免經濟弱勢之原住民族群受優勢文化的入侵而喪失其主體性，特別在憲法中明文規定可以給予優惠性差別待遇。但當法規範賦予特殊群體或少數族裔給予優惠性差別待遇時，則要評估該差別待遇是否符合平等原則之要求，檢視該法規範所以為差別待遇之目的是否正當，其所採取之分類與規範目的之達成之間，是否存有一定程度之關聯性而定。我國原住民族教育法第二十五條修訂過程中對原住民重點學校之校長、主任優先聘任，或教師的聘任應不得低於學校教師員額三分之一或不得低於原住民學生占該校學生數比率之規範，是否符合法規範所要求之平等、比例原則，容有爭議。司法院大法官會議對優惠性措施待遇立法事項是否涉及違反憲法平等權保障就其審查基準參照美國法例有多號解釋提出法律上不同的見解，特別是司法院釋字第七一九號解釋，該號解釋係首度涉及原住民權益及優惠措施待遇的解釋，解釋內容及部分大法官協同意見書或不同意見書對原住民教育法第二十五條校長、主任及教師的聘任多有值得借鑑參考之處，本文除從國內釋憲實務、美國憲法案例說明「優惠性差別待遇」與「反向歧視」（reversediscrimination）觀點外，另亦將從該號解釋文理由書及部分大法官協同意見書、不同意見書探究憲法保障弱勢族群，對原住民族教育法第二十五條做立法合理性之評析，並對此項原住民教育政策提出建議。

Equality is the basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution， we have to assess whether the differential treatment meets the requirements of the principle of equality， views if the discrimination purposes regulated by law is justified and the relevance between the classification of the action taken and the purpose of the specification to some extent when the special or minority groups are given the affirmative action by the legislation. Education Act for Indigenous Peoples， during the period of four amendments， it has great impact on the implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ education. However， there are still some controversies during the law-making process， such as the higher priority for the indigenous identity who are qualified to take the post of a director or a principal in Indigenous schools， the employment of teachers with indigenous identity not less than one-third of school teachers or not less than the proportion of indigenous students in all school students’ numbers. J. Y. Interpretation presented to some explains of different legal opinions for the affirmative action involved with the violation of the equal right of the Constitution guarantees in the reference of American legislation. In particular， J. Y. Interpretation No.719 which was the first interpretation concerning the indigenous peoples’ rights and affirmative action. The content of The J. Y. Interpretation No.719 and some justices concurring opinions or dissenting opinions provided perspectives of employment of indigenous school principals， directors and teachers (Article 25 of Education Act for Indigenous Peoples). This paper will discuss the viewpoints of “affirmative action “ and “reverse discrimination” based on the domestic practices of constitutional interpretation and the Constitution of the United States cases. In addition， it will analyze the legislation of Education Act for indigenous peoples Article 25 from J. Y. Interpretation No.719， some justices concurring opinion， dissenting opinion and explore the constitutional guarantee of disadvantaged groups. Consequently， make recommendations for this Indigenous Education Policy.