全民健保特約制度：制度性法律保留? —從司法院釋字第753號解釋談起【本期企劃】 試閱
The System of Contracted Medical Care Institutions: Institutional Gesetzesvorbehalt?-On Judicial Interpretation No. 753
司法院釋字第753號解釋從制度性法律保留之角度，理解健保特約制度，而認為健保特約制度「未直接限制人民之自由權利」。本文指出健保特約制度底下之基本權侵害態樣，以及其侵害之強度相當於職業許可條件，從而其正當化應適用與職業許可條件相同之正當化基準。惟依司法院憲法解釋歷來之立場，即使職業許可條件，其正當化亦無須適用國會保留原則。對於此一立場，本文認為從民主正當性與重要性理論之角度來看，有所缺憾，然而此卻為國內所常見，此反映了行政部門對於立法部門之不信任。
Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 753 explains that the system of contracted medical care institutions is understood from the perspective of institutional Gesetzesvorbehalt, and believes that the system of contracted medical care institutions “does that directly restrict people’s freedoms and rights.” This article points out the forms of the interference with fundamental rights in the system of contracted medical care institutions, and the strength of interference is equivalent to the restrictions on free career choice through admission requirements. Therefore, the same justification standards as the admission requirements should be applied to its justification. However, according to the persistent position of Judicial Yuan, even by the justification of the admission requirements, the principle of Parlamentsvorbehalt does not need to be applied. Regarding this position, this article believes that it has shortcoming from the perspective of democratic legitimacy and importance theory. However, this position is common and reflects the distrust of the executive branch towards the legislative branch.
027-036
