徒勞但求有功的解釋函令違憲宣告憲法裁判－－憲法法庭113年憲判字第7號判決評析

A Futile but Merit-Seeking Declaration of Unconstitutionality by the Taiwan Constitutional Judgment -- Analysis of the Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-7 of the Taiwan Constitutional Court

憲法法庭113年憲判字第7號判決認為，教育部未依（舊）教師法第35條第2項授權，自行就合格代理教師職前年資提敘事項，訂定具體規範，反透過（舊）中小學兼任代課及代理教師聘任辦法第12條規定，輔以一系列函釋釋明，對合格代理教師職前年資之採計，授權地方政府訂定補充規定，致新北市政府基此發布相關規定，但鑑於此等情事牴觸憲法第108條第1項第4款，故宣告上揭規定及函釋定期失效。惟細觀多數與不同意見之討論，不難看出二者從函釋得否為憲法審查之標的，到對合格代理教師職前年資提敘事宜，是否果如系爭判決所認定，僅涉中央與地方分權的問題，或聘任辦法第12條是否果有「授權」各該主管教育行政機關訂定補充辦法，皆有分歧。爰此，本文乃從程序及實體面為分析，試回答憲法法庭能否如其所期待，藉系爭判決促成合格代理教師提敘事項的合憲規範狀態。

Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-7 of the Taiwan Constitutional Court found that the Ministry of Education had failed to issue specific regulations for evaluating prior teaching experience for qualified substitute teachers, as permitted by Article 35, Section 2 of the Teachers' Act (old version). Instead, it relied on Article 12 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Substitute Teachers (old version), supplemented by a few interpretative orders. This delegation allowed local governments to issue supplementary regulations regarding the recognition of prior teaching experience for qualified substitute teachers, which led to the New Taipei City Government issuing such regulations. However, these actions contravened Article 108, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, resulting in the declaration that the above-mentioned regulations and interpretative orders were invalid. A closer examination of the discussions between the majority and dissenting opinions reveals differing views on whether the interpretative orders are subject to constitutional review, and whether the recognition of prior teaching experience for qualified substitute teachers is merely a matter of central versus local authority, or whether Article 12 actually grants“competence”to the respective education administrative authorities to enact supplementary measures. The purpose of this article is to analyze both procedural and substantive aspects in detail and to address the question of whether the Constitutional Court can, through this judgment, achieve its intended goal of promoting a constitutional framework for assessing prior teaching experience for qualified substitute teachers.