大學教師延長服務退休給與合憲性之探討：評教育部2012年1月30日臺人(三)字第1010009135號函釋   免費試閱

The Constitutional Discussion on Retirement Payment of University Teachers Prolonging Service Period: Comments on Interpretative Rules No.1010009135 of Ministry of Education on January 31, 2012

本文以憲法釋義學，援引大法官許宗力、許玉秀於釋字第596號「平等原則」不同意見書的審查模式，期以檢驗教育部2012年1月30日臺人（三）字第1010009135號關於「教職員延長服務」一案的職權性解釋函釋之合憲與適法性。〈公立專科以上學校辦理教授副教授延長服務案件處理要點〉崇隆碩學鴻儒，其立意良善，惟所採取之限制手段與目的達成間之實質關聯，當通盤設想，絕非以排除「他人退休給與之選擇權」來宣示，而刻意創設獨尊、禮遇規定，此等毋為保護重要公益所必要，且非正當合理之差別待遇的有力論證；其次，教育部函知所轄機關學校，接連引用業已廢止之公務體系相關法令，失其附麗的行政函釋，除自不待言的拘束力外，對公信力的戕害，不可謂輕矣；最後，根據研究結論，提出本文的建議。

This study cited the investigating pattern of Grand Justices, Tzong-Li Sheu & Yuh-Shiou Sheu, regarding differing opinion paper of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.596.in order to test the constitutionality and legality of authorized explanation of Ministry of Education about educators’ prolonging service period. The purpose is good to make ‘Treating Rule concerned Professors & Vice- Professors’ Prolonging Service Period above Public Junior Colleges’, and authorities should consider the equilibrium between means and end, exclusive prescription made intentionally can pass the test of argument of positive discrimination. Besides, Ministry of Education informed all diverse governing institutions and schools and quoted continuously the relevant ordinances concerned government employees that were abolished previously, administrative interpretation based those mentioned above is null and void yet. Public sectors lacking vertical and horizontal coordination and communication mutually make enormous harm to public sectors credibility.