| Abstract: | 長期以來，大陸地區人民基本權之問題一直是備受討論的議題。本文從人權、國民權與公民權的憲法區別探討大陸地區人民基本權保護之議題，並藉由司法院解釋第497號、618號、710號與712號討論司法院大法官對於大陸地區人民基本權保障的強度、範圍與審查標準及觀察大陸地區人民基本權保障的演變。
文獻回顧方面，瑞士法學家伯崙知理與德國公法學家耶林內克提出的學說，闡述基本人權、國民權與公民權之重要性，並從國際人權公約理解國際人權的價值。其次，從憲法脈絡檢視大陸地區人民的法律地位及人權、國民權與公民權的區別，並依時間軸區分為三個階段（1949年前、1949年後及近代學者的看法），接著從1991年制定的憲法增修條文與兩岸條例，探討立法者制定兩岸條例的緣由。
透過四號司法院解釋，描繪出司法院大法官對於大陸地區人民基本權保護的輪廓以及人權、國民權與公民權之區別是本文的核心議題：司法院解釋第497號中司法院大法官認為大陸地區人民具有國民權之一的遷徙自由權，但並不如有戶籍國民享有返國權利，其目前地位甚至不如外國人，大法官採寬鬆審查標準，認為符合比例原則；司法院解釋第618號涉及公民權，該號解釋採取「寬鬆審查標準」，認為在無明顯重大瑕疵之情形下須尊重立法機關之決定。司法院解釋第710號與第712號與人權保障有關，前者司法院大法官肯認人身自由之保障具普世價值，即使為大陸地區人民亦受憲法保障；後者後者部分，多數意見的司法院大法官肯認家庭權之重要性，認為婚姻與家庭應受到憲法制度性保障，同樣為普世人權，其限制應受到嚴格審查，收養為憲法第二十二條列舉自由權，有助於「婚姻與家庭應受制度性保障，及維護人性尊嚴與人格自由發展」，對大陸地區人民收養權的限制遂被宣告違憲。
本文認為，不能僅因人性尊嚴與基本人權保護而對大陸地區人民無管制作為；同樣地，亦不能在憲法增修條文第十一條基礎上，無限上綱限制大陸地區人民的基本人權。在面對錯綜複雜的大陸地區人民基本權問題上，不管是立法者、司法者或是第一線面對大陸地區人民的實務工作者，皆必須思考要如何在人權與國家安全之間尋求共識。而身為人民的我們，也必須了解國家的法律對於大陸地區人民有何限制與規範。如何在國家、憲法、人權三者之間取得平衡，正是我們每個人都應思考的問題。
;For a long time, the fundamental rights of people from the mainland area have been a subject of much discussion. This article discusses the fundamental rights protection of people from the mainland area from the perspective of constitutional differences in human rights, national rights, and civil rights. It also examines the strength, scope, and standards of review of the Grand Justices regarding protection of the fundamental rights of people from The mainland area through J.Y. Interpretation No. 497, No. 618, No. 710, and No. 712, and observes the evolution of the protection of these rights.
In terms of literature review, the doctrines put forward by the Swiss jurist Bluntchli Johann Caspar, and the German public jurist Georg Jellinek, explain the importance of fundamental human rights, national rights, and civil rights, and understand the value of international human rights in light of international human rights conventions.
Additionally, this article examines the legal status of people from the mainland area and the differences between human rights, national rights, and civil rights from constitutional law perspectives, which are presented in three stages according to the timeline (before 1949, after 1949, and the views of modern scholars). Then, it discusses the reasons for legislators to formulate The Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of China and Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area in 1991.
The four J.Y. Interpretations described the core topic of this article: the Grand Justices’ outline of the fundamental rights protection of people from the mainland area and the differences between human rights, national rights, and civil rights. In the J.Y. Interpretation No. 497, the Grand Justices believed that people from the mainland area had the freedom of movement, which is one of the national rights, but they could not enjoy the same right to return home as those nationals with residence registration, a current status that is inferior to even that of foreigners. The Grand Justices adopted a lenient standard of review and held that it was consistent with the principle of proportionality. The J.Y. Interpretation No. 618 involved civil rights. The Interpretation explained that a "minimum scrutiny" had been adopted and considered that the decisions of the legislature should be respected in the absence of obvious and significant defects. The Judicial Yuan further explained that Interpretations No. 710 and No. 712 touched on the protection of human rights. In the former case, the Grand Justices confirmed that the protection of personal liberty had universal value, and even people from the mainland area were protected by the Constitution. In the latter case, the majority of the Grand Justices recognized the importance of family rights, affirming that marriage and family, which are also universal human rights, should be systemically protected by the Constitution, and their restriction should be subject to strict scrutiny. Furthermore, adoption was a right of freedom listed in Article 22 of the Constitution, and helped with the "systemic protection of marriage and family, and the protection of human dignity and free development of personality." It is to be held invalid from the date of issuance date of this Interpretation.
This article argues that people from the mainland area cannot be left unregulated, simply because of concerns for human dignity and fundamental human rights. Likewise, the human rights of people from the mainland area cannot be restricted without limit based on the Article 11 of the Constitutional Amendment. In the face of this complex issue of mainland people’s basic human rights, legislators, the judiciary, and practitioners who deal with mainland people on the front line must consider how to find a consensus between human rights and national security. We, as people, must also understand what restrictions and regulations national laws have imposed on people from the mainland. How we strike a balance between the state, the Constitution, and human rights is exactly the question every one of us should consider. |
