| 英文摘要 |
The event of National Taiwan University’s presidential selection in 2018 raises some academic concerns. Points at issue include: Is presidential selection of national universities protected by university autonomy? Who will be the powerholder to employ the presidents of national universities? What is the right norm offered to be applied for interest avoidance in the relationship between candidates of university president and presidential selection committeemen? What is the legal mechanism for resolving the controversies pertaining to a university president-elect and suspect? This article delves into above-mentioned issues based on a constitutional normative framework between university autonomy and state supervision, which is holistically inducted from serial Grand Justice Interpretations. Employing a jurisprudential analysis, a number of findings have emerged from this research. Firstly, presidential selection of national universities must be protected by university autonomy. This argument is justified on direct evidence from existing legal norms (i.e., the Constitution and University Act). Secondly, national universities have the substantive power to select their presidents in terms of university autonomy and the current mandate of the University Act. And the said Act only grants the Ministry of Education to proceed an ex-post supervision on university’s presidential selection via formal process of president-elect employment. Thirdly, there is no legal problem of interest avoidance controversy if the subject adopts a rule-based argumentation to illuminate the legal norms applied in NTU’s presidential selection case. The Ministry of Education, however, adopts a standard-based one, and concludes that the process of this case runs against the due process of law by making a flexible reading on the Administrative Process Law; Furthermore, it is claimed that the controversies caused by NTU’s president-elect and suspect will be legitimately resolved by normal judicial proceeding and NTU’s established mechanism for discharging an incumbent president. This article closes with several concluding remarks and reflective comments.
|
