論《文化資產保存法》中央與地方立法權限劃分及立法密度問題

On the Division of Legislation of Central and Local Legislation and the Density of Legislation in the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act

在《文化資產保存法》實施之前，於臺灣施行過關與文化資產相關法規有昭和五年(1930)的《史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法》與民國四十八年(1959)的《古物保存法》。民國七十一年(1982)，《文化資產保存法》取代了《古物保存法》，繼而於民國九十四年(2005)進行其整體性與結構性的修法，最近民國一○五年(2016)七月二十七日又進行全文修正。現行《文化資產保存法》共有11章、113條，其中有大量的「相關辦法由中央主管機關定之」，地方自治團體負責之業務也「應報中央主管機關備查」，彰顯出《文化資產保存法》充斥中央立法專屬權概念，因此地方自治團體幾淪為「受委辦機關」之地位。本文以地方制度的發展本質及《地方制度法》之立法理由出發，再透過《文化資產保存法》的歷史發展與修法歷程觀之，主張「文化事項」在《地方制度法》之規定，法位階應高於《文化資產保存法》，故《文化資產保存法》應受《地方制度法》之規範，《地方制度法》為具體化憲法之法律，其將文化事項授權地方自治團體之立法形成，並且提出文化資產保存應以「由下而上的地方治理」作為出發，若有全國統一必要之事項始交由中央立法訂定框架性的基本法之指導方式，始為正當之立論。

Prior to the implementation of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, two previous pieces of legislation had already been introduced into Taiwanese law: The Preservation of Historic Places and Natural Monuments in 1930 and the Antiquities Preservation Law in 1959. Subsequently, in 1982, the ''Cultural Assets Preservation Law'' was enacted to replace the ''Antiquities Preservation Law'', and then in 2005, this legislation underwent an overall structural revision. On July 27th 2016 the full text was again revised with 11 chapters and 113 article. Guidelines related to this new Cultural Heritage Preservation Act are the responsibility of the central competent authority and those matters over which local self-governing bodies are in charge of shall be reported to the central authorities for reference. The statement that the bulk of“related guidelines shall be drawn up by the central authorities”illustrates that the exclusive legislative rights of the central government are implicit across the board in matters relating to the new Cultural Heritage Preservation Act. Therefore, local self-governing bodies are actually relegated to simply“mandated organizations”. This paper starts with a description of the nature of the development of local autonomy systems and the reasons for establishing the Local Government Act, and then makes examines the current Cultural Heritage Preservation Act through the viewpoint of its historical development and revision process. This study argues that, in terms of cultural matters, the legal status of the Local Government Act should be higher than that of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act. The Local Government Act as the constitutional law embodies the Constitution and authorizes local self-governing bodies to make laws about local cultural affairs. This study advocates that cultural heritage preservation shall be based on the principle of“bottom-up local governance”rather than“top down central authority”. The necessary centralized control of national affairs shall be undertaken following the basic framework set up by central legislation. The arguments set out in this study are legitimate and proper.