絕適用憲法的行政法院──釋字第七三○號解釋評釋

The Administrative Court Refuses to Apply the Constitution

釋字第七三○號解釋所涉及之實體憲法問題，包括給付行政法律保留之司法審查密度、公立學校教職員退休金之權利所涉及者為憲法第十八條服公職權抑或憲法第十五條財產權等，皆有其探討價值。惟本號解釋所彰顯更重要之意義，乃是本號解釋從釋字第六五八號解釋以來之司法懈怠事實，即行政法院拒絕於個案中適用憲法及大法官解釋，即使大法官已於前案透過大法官解釋宣告極為類似之法律條文違憲，行政法院還是拒絕參考大法官意旨，為人民於個案中運用合憲解釋或拒絕釋用行政命令等方式，為人民落實個案救濟，本案聲請人仍須透過三級三審後，透過大法官再度以解釋宣告法規違憲，方或可取得一線救濟之曙光。釋字第七三○號解釋為行政法院淪為大法官說一動做一動之人民敗訴法院，無法落實司法提供及時有效救濟之核心功能，提供最好的啟示。

The issues of the constitutional interpretation No. 730 include the judicial review of legislative delegation for social welfare measures, and whether the pension right is a property right under Article 15 or a right of access to public service uner Article 18 of the Constitution, which are all very meningful. However, a more critical point of the constitutional interpretation No. 730 is that it shows the judicial idleness from interpretations No. 658 to No. 730. The administrative courts refused to apply the Constitution or the Constitutional Court’s interpretations in the cases. Even though the Constitutional Court has declared similar laws to be unconstitutional, the administrative courts still refused to refer to the interpretation to remedy the people by refusing to apply unconstitutional decrees or applying the law in a constitutional way. The petitioner in interpretation No. 730 still needed to exhaust three levels of trial and waited until the Constitutional Court to declare the law unconstitutional and finally might be able to get a chance for receiving remedy. The constitutional interpretation No. 730 shed the light on the problem of our administrative courts being the losing courts and the puppet of the Constitutional Court, which fails the judicial function of providing the timely remedy to people.