合理、誠信抑或比例原則：目的正當性歸屬之辯

近年來，國內有學者主張將目的正當性增列為比例原則的第一個子原則。由於目的正當性已為合理原則和誠信原則所包含，該說等於“一女三嫁”。在行政法上，基於濫用職權與明顯不當審查功能分化的需要以及目的正當性判斷的功能屬性，將行政目的正當性要求歸入比例原則並不妥當。由於比例原則對保護公民權利具有顯著優勢，包括英國在內的普通法系國家已逐漸捨棄合理原則，改而採用比例原則；我國引入比例原則之後，為更好地保護公民權利，以比例原則取代合理原則應是大勢所趨。在此背景下，讓目的正當性要求固守在誠信原則中最為妥當，我國人民法院審判實踐中的做法也與上述主張相契合。

In recent years, some scholars have advocated that purpose legitimacy should be added as the first sub-principle of the proportionality principle. Since purpose legitimacy has already been included in the reasonable principle and the principle of good faith, the proposal is tantamount to unnecessary conflation of different principles. Within the scope of administrative law, it is not appropriate to classify purpose legitimacy of administrative purposes into the principle of proportionality based on the need of functional differentiation between power abuse and obvious inappropriateness, and also on the functional attribute of the judgment of purpose legitimacy. Because of the significant advantage of proportionality in protecting human rights, common law countries, including the United Kingdom, have gradually abandoned the reasonable principle and adopted the principle of proportionality alternatively. Since the principle of proportionality was introduced to China, it has become an inevitable trend to replace the principle of reasonability with the principle of proportionality as to better protect the rights of citizens. In this case, it is better to reserve the legitimate purpose to the principle of good faith. The practices of courts in China basically attest to the above proposition.