國家保障原住民的義務──評司法院釋字第803號解釋

The State’s Obligation to Protect Indigenous Peoples-Comment to Judicial Yuan No. 803

"著名的「布農族獵人王光祿」案所產生的司法院釋字第803 號解釋，其中有六點宣示，包含屬母法的槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例及野生動物保育法的四點合憲（1.罰則不牴觸比例原則、自製獵槍不牴觸法律明確性原則；2.獵槍只能自用以維護傳統文化，而不可營利之用；3.原住民非營利狩獵，只限於非保育類；4.狩獵前應經主管機關核准），但宣告子法有兩點違憲（1.對獵槍的規範不足以保障生命權與身體權及原住民的文化權；2.對原住民突發性狩獵所為申報欠缺彈性，牴觸比例原則）。大法官在該案全將違憲性加在子法，而不言及母法之違憲。本文認為此見解有誤，因為子法仍在母法規範下施行達28 年之久，顯然母法合憲性恐有待重新檢驗。 本文認為病灶之源仍是槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例關於自制獵槍的規範，也有違憲之虞，雖然本案對子法宣告違憲的見解值得贊許。但美中不足的是沒有處理到母法「自製獵槍」已牴觸明確性原則的違憲性，同時原住民傳統生活方式的狩獵行為不僅供自用，也有販賣作為謀生方式，故將狩獵權僅限於「非營利式狩獵」，已侵犯原住民的傳統生活方式。本文認為應當全盤檢驗槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例，摒除過度授權行政機關訂定子法的弊病，再以尊重原住民傳統文化與謀生的心態，並參考歐美各國先進的野生動物管制措施，配額開放原住民用先進獵槍狩獵，才能讓國家保障原住民的義務實質彰顯！"

"Interpretation No. 803 by the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan arising from the famous case of“Bunun hunter Tama Talum” according to this Decision, there are six points involved, including the Gun Control Regulations(GCR) and the Wildlife Conservation Law(WCL) four points are constitutional, manely:1. Penalties do not violate the principle of proportionality, and homemade hunting guns do not violate the principle of legal clarity; 2. Hunting guns can only be used to maintain traditional culture, not for profit; 3. Aboriginal non-profit hunting is limited to non-conservation categories; 4. Hunting should be approved by the competent authority in advance. But it is also declared that the sub-law of GCR is unconstitutional in two points: 1. The regulation about the definition of hunting guns is not detailed enough to protect the rights of life and the traditional, cultural rights of the aboriginal people; 2. The regulation for apply the permission before hunting should not include the hunting in case of spontaneous hunting. The Regulation is lack of flexibility and violates the principle of proportionality. This paper criticizes that the Decision, should not limit the unconstitutionality in the sub-law of GCR, instead that, the unconstitutionality of the GCR should be also discussed. It’s illogic, that the“unconstitutional”sub-law has been implemented for 28 years under the“constitutional”GCR without any question? Obviously, the constitutionality of the“mother law”of GCR may need to be re-examined. This art icle argues that key point of the constitutionality of this case lay in the GCR’regulation about it’s definition of“self-made”shotguns, for it’s too vague to detail the meaning of such guns. Thus it’s against principle of clarity. At the same time, the traditional way of hunting of aboriginal people is not only for personal use, but also selling as a way of making a living. Therefore, as the Decision, the right to hunt shall only limited to“Non-profit hunting”, has violated the traditional way of life of the aboriginal people. This article believes GCR should be comprehensively examined, and the excessively authorizing administration to formulate sub-laws should be eliminated. Then, with the mentality of respecting the traditional culture and livelihood of the aboriginal people, and referring to the advanced wildlife control measures in Europe and the United States, quotas should be opened for the use of indigenous peoples. Only with advanced hunting guns regulation can fully protect the both the traditional living way and wild life of Taiwan!"