公法眼中的所謂法律不可追溯－－談「諮商、同意或參與」規定是否適用於亞泥公司採礦權展限申請

Non-Retroactivity Principle through Lens of Public Law: Focusing on the Application of “Consultation, Consent, or Participation” Rule to Asia Cement Corporation's Mining Right Extension

「將2005年公布施行的「原住民族基本法」第21條第1項『諮詢、同意或參與』規定，適用於2016年11月的採礦權展限申請案件，是否違反了法規不溯及既往原則」？為了處理上述問題，本文歸納了我國司法院歷來涉及法規溯及既往疑義的大法官解釋，並整理了法律學者對於法規不溯及既往的類型界定及相關看法。大法官所容許的法規溯及既往類型，大多為「事實開始於新法公布施行前，但終結於新法公布施行後」的案例，學界稱為「不真正溯及既往」。針對何以「不真正溯及既往」為法所容許？學界咸認為應從信賴保護原則出發加以分析：多數學者並認為在判斷涉及溯及既往與否疑義的法規是否合憲時，應就人民的信賴保護利益及系爭法規所代表的公共利益間，進行利益衡量。本文認為，從形式上觀察，原住民族基本法第21條第1項「諮詢、同意或參與」規定並未涉及效力的溯及既往。從信賴保護原則出發加以分析，也無從得到礦業權者具有充分信賴基礎的結論。另外從原住民族基本法的立法脈絡及規範目的觀之，該法具有肯認原住民族自決權、強調其主體性等特徵，並有明確化其權利保障標準及實踐轉型正義等公共利益支持。適用原住民族基本法前揭規定於採礦權展限申請案例，不能認為是對於礦業權者權利的過度侵害，主管機關反而應致力於實踐前揭規定的立法目的，使本案成為落實原住民族轉型正義的重要指標。 Does the application of the “Consultation, Consent, or Participation” rule, Article 21, Section 1 of the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act, to Asia Cement Corporation's mining right extension submission violate the “Non-Retroactivity” principle? In order to deal with the above issue, this article summarized interpretations regarding the application of “non-retroactivity” principle made by Grand Justices of Taiwan, and compiling relative theories of legal scholarship. The permissible retroactivity cases, under Grand Justices interpretations, are mostly cases of “the Facts started before new law's promulgation, but ended after new law's promulgation”, also described as “not really retroactive” cases by most scholars. Most scholars analyzed the legitimacy of permissible retroactive cases by applying the Principle of Reliance Protection and suggested the court to weigh the interests between people's reliance protection and legislative purpose before judging the constitutionality of the rule suspect of “non-retroactivity” principle violation. This article contends that, through formal observation, the “Consultation, Consent, or Participation” Rule subscribed in Article 21, Section 1 of the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act does not establish any retroactive rule. Further, this article could not reach the conclusion either that there is any reliance basis for mining right holders through the application of Principle of Reliance Protection. In addition, from the observation of legislative contest and purpose, this article finds out that the recognition of indigenous people's right to self-government, the emphasis on indigenous people's subjectivity, the establishment of indigenous people's right protection standards, as well as the realization of indigenous people's transformative justice, are all characteristics of the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act. Based on above public interests, applying the “Consultation, Consent, or Participation” Rule to Asia Cement Corporation's Mining Right Extension does not overly infringe Asia Cement Corporation's mining right. Relatively, the authorities have to make endeavors to realize the legislative purpose of the above rule and make this case the leading one of achieving indigenous people's transformative justice.