論「地方自治保障案件」之聲請釋憲

A Research on Cases Concerning the Guarantee of Local Self-Government for Constitutional Interpretation

地方自治為憲法上重要所保障的制度，地方依憲法及法律有其相關之自主權限，然亦應受上級監督機關（中央）之監督。惟如地方自治團體認為上級監督機關之相關監督行為違法違憲，或甚至認為中央之法規範侵害其自治權限等，當亦保障其得為法律上之救濟，即視各該情狀而有行政爭訟途徑與憲法爭訟途徑。
本文所探究者即前述地方自治團體就其自治權限之維護而聲請釋憲的部分。對此憲法訴訟法第七章規定有「地方自治保障案件」，其中共二個條文（第82條及第83條），規範地方自治團體（或其機關）於一定情狀及要件下可聲請釋憲以茲解決相關爭議。本文即論述此二個條文的法理根基、歷史沿革及其於釋憲體系中之地位，乃至與其他相關釋憲法律之關係。而於法理上重要者更屬該章此二種類型所規範聲請釋憲之程序合法要件以及大法官的審理與裁判（乃至裁判的效力），本文亦為相關討論，以使對此一制度有全盤周延的理解，最後亦對憲法訴訟法第七章提出具體的修法建議，以供各界參酌。

Local self-government is a crucial system guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Constitution and relevant laws, local self-governing bodies enjoy autonomy on relevant matters on the one hand, and are also supervised by (central) superior government authorities on the other hand. Meanwhile, when local self-governing bodies consider that supervision from superior government authorities violates laws or the Constitution, or that laws promulgated by the central government infringe their local autonomy, their right to seek remedies according to law should also be guaranteed, i.e., to seek remedies through administrative and constitutional litigation depending on different circumstances.
On this basis, the research focuses on the issue of the application for constitutional interpretation by local self-governing bodies for the purpose of ensuring their autonomy. According to Chapter Seven of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, two provisions (i.e., Articles 82 and 83) promulgate that local self-governing bodies are eligible to apply for constitutional interpretation when the specific requirements are met. Therefore, this research firstly analyzes the legal bases and history of these two provisions as well as their status in the system of constitutional interpretation and their relationship with other provisions involving constitutional interpretation. Moreover, to comprehensively understand this institutional design, this research examines the procedural requirements for applying this kind of constitutional interpretation as well as trial and decisions by the Grand Justices under these two provisions. Finally, this research further provides proposals for the amendment of Chapter Seven of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act for reference.