English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89713/119533 (75%)
Visitors : 23937833      Online Users : 140
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96807


    Title: 論憲法上之最低生存保障請求權
    Authors: 張桐銳
    Chang, Tung-Jui
    Keywords: 社會救助;最低生存保障;最低生活費;社會基本權;生存權;補充原則
    Social Assistance;Minimum Subsistence Guarantee;Minimum Cost of Living;Fundamental Social Rights;Right to Subsistence;Principle of Subsidiarity
    Date: 2011-10
    Issue Date: 2016-05-20 16:38:27 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 社會救助可說是人民憲法上最低生存保障請求權之具體化。本文以人民最低生存保障請求權為研究對象,分析其憲法基礎與規範內容。在憲法基礎上,本文主張,如果制憲者有意賦予人民憲法上請求權,而明文規定社會基本權,其意志應受尊重。至於因肯定人民享有憲法上給付請求權,所引起與民主國原則衝突之疑慮,本文認為可透過憲法之和諧解釋解決。結論是,以生存權為依據所推導出之最低生存保障請求權,如同其他社會基本權,得作為違憲審查之基準以及個案中法官解釋法律與補充法律漏洞之指導原則,並且在最低生存保障連透過漏洞補充都無法獲得實現時,直接作為請求\r權基礎。在規範內容上,本文於現行社會救助制度之脈絡中,檢討最低生存保障請求權之規範內容。本文主張,人民最低生存需求之滿足以自我負責為原則,故其對於國家之最低生存保障請求權以其無力維持生計為要件;且國家與家庭在人民最低生存需求之滿足上,家庭負擔履行責任,惟國家應承擔擔保責任,於家庭無力承擔其履行責任時,國家即應提供給付。在最低生存需求之認定上,社會救助法以每人平均消費支出之60%來擬定「最低生活費」尚稱合理,惟最低生活費僅用以界定「低收入戶」,而非決定生活扶助金之額度,則非妥當。最後,對於社會救助法第十六條所規定之特殊項目救助與服務,人民是否有給付請求權,端視其是否屬於最低生存需求而定。
    Social assistance is the actualization of the right of claim for minimum subsistence guarantee as stated in the Constitution. The purpose of this research is to analyze the foundation and contents of the Constitution regarding people’s right of claim for minimum subsistence guarantee. In terms of the foundation of the Constitution, this research advocated that the lawmakers’ will should be respected in the attempt to give the right of claim to people, by stipulating fundamental social rights. As for any contradiction to the fundamental principle of a democratic state, which might result from affirming people’s payment claim, this research suggests that the issue could be resolved through an interpretation of the Constitution. It is concluded that the right of claim for minimum subsistence guarantee based on the right to subsistence, just like other fundamental social rights, may be used as the golden rule when investigating if the Constitution was violated, and when judges interpreted the law as well as providing a supplement to counter the loophole in law; the result could serve as the basis for the right of claim when minimum subsistence guarantee could not be obtained, even after the loophole in law has been supplemented. In terms of the contents of the Constitution, this research reviewed the norm regarding the right of claim for minimum subsistence guarantee, and concluded that meeting people’s requirement of minimum subsistence should be based on self-responsibility. Consequently, failing to make a living was a prerequisite to the right of claim for minimum subsistence guarantee. For meeting people’s requirement of minimum subsistence, Family should assume the fulfilling responsibility and the Nation should assume the assurance responsibility. When Family fails to fulfill its responsibility, the Nation should pay. As for the “minimum cost of living”, it is reasonable for the Social Assistance Law to compute it as 60% of the per capita nonproductive expenditure. However, the “minimum cost of living” was only used to define the “low-income family” and not the amount of living subsidy, which seemed inappropriate. Lastly, people’s right of claim for the special assistance and services stated in Article 16 of the Social Assistance Law depends on whether special assistance and service are among the requirements for minimum subsistence.
    Relation: 法學評論, 123, 121-191
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    123(121-191).pdf971KbAdobe PDF914View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback