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

陳新民(Chen, Shin-Min)

狩獵文化 ； 自製獵槍 ； 野生動物保育 ； 王光祿 ； 狩獵的謀生方式 ； Hunting Culture ； Self-Made Hunting Firearms ； Wildlife Conservation ； Tama Talum ； Hunting as Living Way

軍法專刊

68卷1期（2022 / 02 / 01）

1 - 19

繁體中文

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 article 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!

1. 釋字第 662 號
2. 2011 年修正的槍砲彈藥刀械許可及管理辦法第 2 條第 1 項第 3 款
3. 2015 年修正的原住民族基於傳統文化及祭儀需要獵捕宰殺利用野生動物管理辦法第 4 條第 3 項、第 4 項、第 13 條
4. 釋字第 803 號解釋理由書第 20 至 22 段
5. 德國在 1952 年便制定了聯邦狩獵法（Bundesjagdgesetz），第 15 條
6. 野保法第 51 條之 1
7. 釋字第 702 號
8. 釋字第 734 號
9. Schmidt, R.(2008).Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht.
10. 王玉葉(1998)。美國最高法院處理優惠待遇（Affirmative Action）案件之新趨勢。美國最高法院重要判決之研究：1993、1995
11. 王光祿與潘志強在釋字第 803 號解釋公布後的新聞稿，〈原住民狩獵釋憲案聲請人：為大法官善後的特赦〉，2021 年 5 月 22 日，《蘋果日報》，〈https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/20210522/CNV3VER-KQ5DVXKXUZY2AUQPUZA/〉，最後瀏覽日：2021 年 10 月 12 日。
12. 何吉森(2021)。立法者對黨政軍退出媒體的形成自由界限—再思黨政與媒體應有之距離。教育暨資訊科技法學評論，7，22。
13. 胡博硯(2017)。各國原住民自治制度之權限差異與研究。第八屆原住民傳統習慣與國家法治研討會會議手冊
14. 張永明(2020)。黨政退出廣電媒體條款之再檢視。教育法學評論，6，4。
15. 陳新民.憲法學釋論.
16. 陳新民(2018)。最高法院的覺醒－由提出王光祿釋憲案所引發最高法院提出釋憲案的制度與原住民權益保障的法制問題。政大法學評論，115，56。
17. 陳新民(2021)。由憲法與法治國原則檢驗「黨政軍退出媒體」規定的合憲性問題。中華法學，19，47。
18. 廖元豪(1996)。美國「種族優惠性差別待遇」（Racial Affirmative Action）合憲性之研究。東吳大學法律學報，9(2)，1。

1. 蔡志偉(2022)。從釋字第803號解釋看國家與原住民族間的權利認知斷裂。臺灣民主季刊，19(3)，1-46。
2. 許恒達(2023)。原住民文化權利的憲法界限－以司法院釋字第803號解釋為中心－。輔仁法學，65，227-277。
3. 呂嘉穎(2022)。論總統的特赦權行使對釋字第803號解釋產生之後續影響。台灣原住民族研究，15(2)，41-64。
4. (2022)。從警察法規立法過程評析大法官之司法解釋。法學叢刊，67(3)，69-94。