專門職業及技術人員資格取得之憲法問題──以司法院釋字第655號解釋為中心

Constitutional Issues on Special Qualifications for Professional and Technical Personnel: Discussions Focused on the Constitutional Court Interpretation No. 655

2007年6月15日立法院三讀通過增訂記帳士法第2條第2項：「依本法第三十五條規定領有記帳及報稅代理業務人登錄執業證明書者，得換領記帳士證書，並充任記帳士。」（下稱系爭規定）記帳士法第35條規定：「本法施行前已從事記帳及報稅代理業務滿三年，且均有報繳該項執行業務所得，自本法施行之日起，得登錄繼續執業。但每年至少應完成二十四小時以上之相關專業訓練。」（2004年6月2日立法院公布施行之）據此，原未經考試及格的「記帳及報稅代理業務人」，如合於記帳士法第35條規定，即可依新增訂之系爭規定，以登錄換照方式取得與須經考試及格之「記帳士」相同的資格。考試院（即本件釋字第655號解釋聲請人）主張系爭規定發生有牴觸憲法第86條第2款及釋字第453號解釋等之疑義，聲請解釋憲法。司法院於2009年2月20日公布釋字第655號解釋宣告系爭規定違憲且立即失效。本文從專門職業及技術人員資格取得之憲法問題，進一步分析討論該號解釋的來龍去脈以及所涉及之數項程序面與實體面憲法爭議，敬請方家正之。

On July 11, 2007, the Certified Public Bookkeepers Act was amended by adding Article 2, Paragraph 2: “Anyone issued a practice registration certificate as a bookkeeping and tax filing agent may convert that certificate to Certified Public Bookkeeper certificate and serve as a certified public bookkeeper in accordance with Article 35 hereof.” Further, Article 35, Paragraph 1 of that Act provides: “Those who have engaged in bookkeeping and tax filing agent business for at least three years before the implementation of this Act and have duly reported business income, may register to continue such practice as of the date this Act is implemented, provided, however, at least 24 hours of related professional training shall be accrued each year.” Therefore, the disputed provision entitles bookkeeping and tax filing agents not otherwise qualified through examinations as certified public bookkeepers to summarily acquire, by converting certificates, the same status as certified public bookkeepers licensed through examinations. The Examination Yuan argued：According to the J. Y. Interpretation No. 453, certified public bookkeepers are professionals. Their qualification for practice shall be obtained through examinations administered by the Examination Yuan in accordance with Article 86, Section 2 of the Constitution. Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Certified Public Bookkeepers Act shall be announced invalid. J. Y. Interpretation No. 655, in turn, has thus been made. This paper therefore intends to provide a different perspective as to the analysis of the Interpretation at issue and its furtherance in the research thereon.