（專題）論國立大專校院兼任主管職教師違失行為之法律責任―以行政責任之界限為中心

卷期：67卷第2期
日期：2022年6月
頁碼：185-211
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202206_67(2).0007

摘要：
有鑑於國外學界對於大專校院教師兼任主管職務之見解雖多為正向，但於反芻我國現況時，乃初步發現對於同樣能夠達成「大學社會責任」核心目的之大專校院教師兼任學校各單位主管一事，政府在現行法制設計上，不僅基於司法院大法官釋字第308號解釋，針對研究量能多較私立大專校院為高的國公立大專校院專任教師兼任主管職人員之行為規範，採行公務人員管理模式思維，在學校人事行政實務上亦是對於該當群體成員設有重重限制。緣此，本文採取以文件分析為主的質性研究法，擬自基於前述釋字第308號解釋所形成的公教分途觀點，整理與探究政府於國立大專校院教師在兼任主管職務工作期間所建構之違失行為行政責任追究面向的管理規範內容，是否符合自教育法學觀點所建構出的高等教育行政圖像，並提出我國政府未來應依據以執行「最低必要程度之合目的性監督」原則為基礎的友善監督立場，對於前述面向之管理規範應調整、抑或需進一步研擬的具體策略。最後為求自根本處落實前述政府應善盡之友善監督立場，乃提出人民或可提出聲請釋字第308號解釋變更之憲法訴訟，以及國家最高立法機關應參酌日本《教育公務員特例法》的立法先例或是推動國立大學法人化之法制化工作，劃定國家公權力得涉入教育事項之範疇等相關呼籲，以促成我國高等教育行政體制之完善運作。

關鍵詞：公教分途、合目的性監督、兼任主管職教師違失、高等教育、違失行為

《詳全文》

1. 王怡惠（2016，11月21日）。美國大學專任教師兼職活動之利益衝突管理規範（上）：公立加州大學。科技政策觀點。http://doi.org/10.6916/STPIRP.2016-11-21【Wang, Y.-H. (2016, November 21). Conflict of interest regulation for part-time activities of full-time faculty at U.S. universities (above): Public University of California. Research Porttal. http://doi.org/10.6916/STPIRP.2016-11-21】
2. 司法院（1995）。釋字第380號解釋。憲法法庭全球資訊網。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.　aspx?fid=100&id=310561&rn=19345【Judicial Yuan. (1995). Interpretation No. 380 of Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court of R.O.C. (Taiwan) Website. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310561&rn=19345】
3. 司法院（1998）。釋字第450號解釋。憲法法庭全球資訊網。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.　aspx?fid=100&id=310631&rn=-980【Judicial Yuan. (1998). Interpretation No. 450 of Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court of R.O.C. (Taiwan) Website. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310631&rn=-980】
4. 司法院（2003）。釋字第563號解釋。憲法法庭全球資訊網。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.　aspx?fid=100&id=310744&rn=-9734【Judicial Yuan. (2003). Interpretation No. 563 of Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court of R.O.C. (Taiwan) Website. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310744&rn=-9734】
5. 刑泰釗（1998）。校園法律實務。教育部。【Sing, T.-J. (1998). Campus law practice. Ministry of Education.】

(Special Issue) On the Misconduct of Teachers With Administrative Duties at the National College and University: Centering on the Limits of Administrative Liability

Vol.&No.：Vol. 67, No. 2
Date：June 2022
Pages：185-211
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202206_67(2).0007

Abstract：
Universities are centers of teaching and research. Additionally, universities play an foundational role in social and economic development. In the United States, teachers are often regarded as social servants and are an indicator of their ability to implement curriculum. In Taiwan, article 1, paragraph 1 of the University Act states that the purpose of a university is “to research, nurture talent, enhance the culture, [provide] service to society and promote national development [...].” In addition, article 1, item 1 of the Junior College Act stipulates that “colleges and universities shall teach and promote applied science and technology, cultivate employability, and develop practical professionals.” Since 2017, Taiwan’s government has proposed and promoted projects such as the University Social Responsibility Practice Plan and the Higher Education Deepening Project, which focus on the implementation of university social responsibility (USR). USR encourages university teachers and students to improve their academic research and partake in social development activities. Therefore, Taiwan’s government should adopt a positive and supportive stance toward engagement with faculty members in off-campus professional activities and promoting USR.
This paper thus analyzes university teacher behavior from the perspectives of laws and regulations and behavioral management as well as the role of the state. The focus is on teachers who are engaging in supervisory duties.
Because this paper focuses on the analysis of academic theories and legal regulations, we adopted the qualitative research method of document analysis. The focal documents are mainly legal and regulatory documents, including Interpretation No. 308, administrative letters, court decisions, and impeachment cases of the Control Yuan. Additionally, we engage in a comparison of Taiwan’s relevant legal regime with those of other nations.
Ultimately, we determined that Interpretation No. 308 is not only at odds with Taiwan’s constitution and jurisprudence protecting the academic freedom of university teachers and universities’ autonomy but also with the principles of higher education administration. The central education administration still relies only on Interpretation No. 308 to maintain that the Civil Service Law and the related laws and regulations derived from it must be applied to university teachers who hold supervisory positions; yet, this violates the Statutory Doctrine of Higher Education established in constitutional jurisprudence and other interpretations of the Judicial Yuan. Although this article does not abandon the logic of the legal system, it provides some suggestions for the central educational administration to implement the "minimum necessary degree of purposeful supervision.” However, two actions are necessary to do so.
First, people may need to petition the Constitutional Court to reconsider or overrule Interpretation No. 308. This would be similar to urging the Justice Court to implement the Supplementary Interpretation that was mandated before the publication and implementation of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. According to article 42, paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, which came into force in January 2019, if the people determine and judge that the legal norms that have been interpreted as constitutional by the Judicial Yuan or if significant changes in social circumstances occur, they may appeal to the Constitutional Court for review. If the academic community agrees that Interpretation No. 308 infringes on the autonomy of the university, the relevant parties should follow the provisions and procedures set forth in the same law to request the Constitutional Court to review whether Interpretation No. 308 remains appropriate.
Second, to implement the Statutory Doctrine of Higher Education in the administration of higher education and clarify the supervisory authority of the central education administration, this paper argues that the highest legislature of Taiwan should reference the Japanese Educational Civil Service Law or the precedent of legalizing national universities. Moreover, the legislature should clearly define the areas in which the state can intervene in national basic education and higher education to protect teachers and their rights. Doing so would improve the operation of the Taiwanese higher education system.

Keywords：separation of government functionary and teacher, purposeful supervision, teachers with administrative duties, higher education, malfeasance in public office