性平會調查小組全部外聘及溯及既往的爭議

The Controversy Surrounding the Retrospective Application of External Appointments in the Gender Equality Committee's Investigative Teams

探討《性別平等教育法》調查小組成員外聘規定所衍生之爭議，聚焦於2004年6月23日公布的性平法第30條「部分小組成員得外聘」是否排除「全部外聘」之可能，及2018年修法溯及適用至舊案是否合法合憲。實務上對於調查小組全員外聘的合法性見解分歧，最高行政法院109年度大字第5號裁定採否定見解，認為舊法禁止全部外聘，且新法不得溯及適用，否則違反信賴保護與禁止溯及原則。本文認為，舊法條文屬立法疏漏，應透過目的性擴張解釋，肯認全部外聘之合法性；即使依否定見解，亦可認為2018年修法具明確立法目的與公益考量，屬符合憲法例外允許之「真正溯及」情形，未違反信賴保護原則。本文最後肯定2022年修法明文溯及既往，有效釐清制度爭議，維護性別事件處理之正當性與法安定性。

This article examines the controversies surrounding the external appointment of investigation team members under the Gender Equity Education Act (GEEA). In its 2020 Grand Panel Decision No. 5, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the old law prohibits full external appointments and deemed retroactive application of the new law unconstitutional, as it violates the principles of legitimate expectation protection and the prohibition of retroactivity. The article argues that this reflects a legislative oversight in the old law and that full external appointments can be justified through purposive interpretation. Even under a restrictive view, the 2018 amendments, grounded in clear legislative intent and public interest considerations, meet the constitutional exception for true retroactivity, thereby not violating the principle of legitimate expectation. Finally, the article supports the 2022 amendments, which explicitly clarified retroactive application, effectively resolving systemic disputes while promoting fairness and legal certainty in handling gender-related cases.