憲法財產權保障的司法自制與積極

Judicial Self-Restraint and Judicial Activism in the Constitutional Protection of Property Rights

我國晚近的釋憲實務見解，已確立起將財產權之限制連結於寬鬆審查標準的審查態度。此一財產權保障之定位，從民主原則而衍生之參與導向、代議強化的理論以及現代行政國家之國家角色理解所支撐的美國雙重審查標準架構來看，恰如其分。在此同時，更宏觀地從釋憲實務整體來觀察，會發現也存在偏離寬鬆審查的案例，在特定事物領域，甚至呈現相當顯著的司法積極主義現象。究竟財產權之保障被放置於何等位置？理論基礎何在？與社會背景又有何關聯？凡此均引人深思。
本文之目的，即在觀察與分析財產權限制的司法審查態度，包括原則上連結寬鬆審查的預設，以及同時也存在的提高審查密度乃至積極保障的面向。藉由比較制度分析的視角，本文認為我國財產權的憲法保障，整體而言，在司法自制與司法積極之間的拿捏未有重大偏差，取得的或許是比美國更加適切的平衡。只是，在偏離司法自制往司法積極一端的那些案例發展，欠缺明確而具有體系性的論理。而本文透過比較制度分析開展的討論，或有助於在建構財產權司法審查密度調控上，提供更具體系性的理論基礎。

The standpoint of the Constitutional Court in recent years has been to principally apply the rational basis test to the restriction of property rights. This standpoint of property rights protection is consistent with the double standard of judicial review in the United States, which is supported by the participation-oriented, representation-reinforcing theory and the understanding of the role of the modern administrative state. At the same time, the observation of the overall practice of the constitutional interpretation reveals that there are also some cases deviating from the rational basis review and, in certain contexts, it is even significant judicial activism in the attitude towards the protection of property rights. What is the comprehensive picture of the constitutional protection of property rights? What is the underlying theoretical basis? What social factors affect the judicial attitude and its evolution? All deserve further exploration.
The purpose of this article is to observe and analyze the judicial review attitudes towards the protection of property rights under Taiwan’s Constitutional Court decisions, including the premise of applying the rational basis test and the aspect of increasing the level of scrutiny and even active protection at the same time. Through the perspective of comparative institutional analysis, this article asserts that the overall outlook of the current constitutional protection of property rights in Taiwan has struck a more or less sound balance between judicial self-restraint and judicial activism and, likely, has struck a better balance than the one in the United States. However, those Court opinions deviating from the baseline of judicial self-restraint and leaning toward judicial activism lack clear and coherent reasoning. The exploration through comparative institutional analysis in this article would help to establish a comprehensive theoretic basis for adjusting the level of judicial scrutiny in the individual contexts when reviewing the infringement of property rights.