張志偉

中文摘要

在中央法規命令採取內、外國有別之食安標準下，憲法法庭111 年憲判字第6 號判決亦肯認此一食安標準可以有別，卻未揭示其間的利益衡量，而僅訴諸中央與地方權限有別。惟此一判決所揭示的中央與地方權限劃分標準，既與先前釋憲實務所依循之均權原則與制度性保障有別，形成與歷來解釋論證斷裂，亦限縮地方對此可能的立法空間，與歷來憲法學或地方自治法學所界定之地方事務理解，顯有不同，對於地方自治保障恐將有不利影響。

Standard of Division of Central and Local Power

Another Review on the Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-6 (2022) and the Possible Sphere for Self-Government Ordinance

Chih-Wei Chang

abstract

The central regulation sets forth different food safety standards for domestic producuts and imported products. Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-6 (2022) confirms that the food safety standard may be different. However, the decision doesn’t provide how the Court balances the interests involved. It only states that the power of central government is different from that of the local government. The standard of division of central and local power stated in the decision is not only different from the principles of the equal division of powers between the central and local government and institutional guarantee, which results in a disconnect with previous Court decisions, but the decision also limits the possible local legislative power, which is obviously different from the definition of local affairs provided by the constitutional jurisprudence and local self-government jurisprudence in the past. This may create negative impact on the protection of local self-government.