原住民身分宜各族自決與優惠應區別的理想與現實

The Concepts and Realities of Determining Membership by Tribes and Differencing Member’s Benefit

憲法法庭111年憲判字第4號判決中，裁示現今《原住民身分法》中部分法條違憲，若2年內未修法，則違憲條文自動失效。判決文併此敘明中，又提出「身分與優惠措施應作適當的區分」，以及「身分所需認同表徵宜尊重所屬原住民族決定」兩項重要的修法方向。本文分析依照現今原住民族行政法規，此兩項修法理想能否達成，若未能達成，現實限制又是如何。分析發現，我國現今原住民族行政完全未以民族別推動，致使民族別身分聊備一格。而近年我國雖積極推動部落會議，民族公法人制度卻遲未推動，民族別自治遙遙無期。為了避免原住民族內部不平等狀況加劇，優惠措施依照條件差異加以區分，是最應積極投入的修法項目。

In the TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-4 (2022), the Constitutional Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right of identity and equality of each indigenous individual who has indigenous blood and some articles in the current ''Status Act for Indigenous Peoples'' are unconstitutional. If the Act is not amended in 2 years, those unconstitutional articles will be automatically invalid. In the judgment, it also pointed out that member’s benefit should be properly distinguished, and that the membership criteria should respect each indigenous tribe. These are two important directions for amending the Act. In this paper I analyze whether these two concepts could work according to the current indigenous administrations, and what will be the practical limitations if they cannot be achieved. The analysis found that the current indigenous administrations are not carried out on the basis of tribes, and tribal status is completely useless. resulting in a low foundation for tribal administration. In recent years, the village administration which has been actively promoted, conflicts with possibility of tribal administration. In order to avoid the exacerbation of inequality among indigenous peoples, member’s benefit should be properly distinguished according to different requirements, should be the most important amendment works.