關於受教權（教育權；Right to Education），其主要範疇在於學生之教育權益（Students’ Right to Education）之保障，然而學校之整體事務，仍應包含學校機關之獨立運作及教職員工之職能暨其權益保障等範疇，並涉及公益維護之社會功能機制，所以大法官釋字659號解釋文及理由書中即接櫫：『教育乃國家百年大計，影響深遠，具高度之公共性及強烈之公益性』、『基於維護(私立)學校之健全發展，保障學生之受教權利及教職員之工作權益等重要公益』等重要理念；至於教育平等（Education Equality）之保障，雖無法從本號解釋即得明文觀察，然而如就其所涉爭議以觀，例如本案之該私校董事會爭議，依法得授權主管教育行政機關及時介入監督，關於此監督機制，所稱之『學校之健全發展』，即涉及受教權及廣泛教育平等之概念，因此筆者仍將該內涵列入，尚請方家多予見諒。
J. Y. Interpretation No.591
Article 32, Paragraph 1 of the Private School Act, as amended and promulgated on June 18, 1997, provides: “ if a board of directors cannot convene its meeting(s) as a result of dispute, or is in violation of education laws and regulations, the government agency in charge of the education (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) may order the school to take steps to improve the situation by a specified date and shall the board fail to comply, the Authority may then remove all of the board members from office. Nevertheless, in the event severe circumstances and urgent situation arise, the Authority may, after consulting the Private School Consultative Committee (the “Committee”) to obtain a resolution from the Committee, forthwith remove all of the board members from office or suspend all of their powers for two to six months with the possibility to extend if necessary.” With respect to the paragraph “if a board of directors cannot convene its meeting(s) as a result of dispute, or is in violation of education laws and regulations”, while its literal meaning and legislative purpose may not be incomprehensible to those directors who are subject to the law, it can be scrutinized and defined through judicial review, and there should be no violation of the principle of clarity and definiteness of the law.
The proviso stipulated in the Article is aimed to maintain the sound development of private schools, and to protect students’ right to education as well as faculty and working staff’s right to work, among other important interests. Such objectives are justified and the restrictive means taken are necessary to accomplish the goals and, therefore not inconsistent with the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution, nor in conflict with the people’s right to work guaranteed by the Constitution.
With a high degree of public interest and welfare, education is State’s long-term project and its effect is far-reaching. Article 162 of the Constitution provides that all public and private educational and cultural institutions in the nation shall be subject to State supervision in accordance with the law. The Old Act was thus enacted to realize the meaning and purpose of this Constitution provision. Article 32, Paragraph 1 of the Old Act provides that: “if a board of directors cannot convene its meeting(s) as a result of a dispute, or is in violation of education laws and regulations, the Authority may order the school to take steps to improve the situation by a specified date and shall the board fail to comply, the Authority may then remove all of the board members from office. Nevertheless, in the event severe circumstances and urgent situation arise, the Authority may, after consulting the Private School Consultative Committee to obtain a resolution, forthwith remove all of the board members from office or suspend all of their powers for two to six months with the possibility to extend if necessary” (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed provision”). Removing all of the directors from office is a restriction on their subjective condition concerning the freedom to choose an occupation (see J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 637 and 649). The State, wishing to do so, must be for the purpose of pursuing an important public interest and the means taken shall be substantially related to attainment of its purpose. The disputed provision stipulates that if a board meeting can not be convened due to a dispute, or if the board has violated education laws and regulations, the Authority is then authorized to timely intervene to maintain the sound development of private schools, and to protect students’ rights to education as well as faculty and working staff’s rights to work, among other important interests. It is in line with the meaning and purpose of Constitution’s fundamental national policy and is thus justified and appropriate.Pursuant to this Yuan’s past Interpretations, the concepts used in a statute are not inconsistent with the principle of clarity and definiteness of the law if their meanings, through the statute’s text and legislative purpose, are not incomprehensible to those who are subject to the statute, and may also be scrutinized and defined through judicial review (see Interpretations 432, 491, 602 and 632). With respect to board meetings that can not be convened as stipulated in the disputed provision, it is sufficient so long as it is the result of a dispute, regardless of whether the dispute is attributable to any individual board member’s fault. Given that the board shall convene at least once every semester to be called by the chairman of the board, or to convene within 10 days after the chairman receives a written request of more than 1/3 of the incumbent directors that states the purpose and reasons of the meeting (see Paragraph 1, first part of Paragraph 2 and first part of Paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Old Act) and that a board resolution requires a quorum of more than 1/2 of the directors, or more than 2/3 of the directors for material matters (see Article 29, Paragraph 2), the so-called “cannot convene its meetings” refers to the above-cited provisions under the Old Act.
With regard to the part that concerns whether the board of directors violates education laws and regulations, it is premised on the fact that the relevant education laws and regulations are clear and definite in text, that their scope can be ascertained and their contents are not incomprehensible to the directors who are subject to the law.Furthermore, it cannot be the legislative intent of the disputed provision to assume that a board of directors is deemed to have violated education laws and regulations and is still considered necessary that it should first have a dispute; otherwise even when the board unanimously passes an illegal resolution that damages the rights of students and faculty, the Authority would still lack the authority to supervise private schools and have them take remedy measures.
Consequently, the Authority can exercise its supervision power so long as the board of directors of private schools either “cannot convene its board meeting(s) as a result of a dispute” or “has violated education regulations”. If the disputed provision, through its text and legislative purpose, is not incomprehensible to the directors who are subject to the disputed provision and can be foreseeable by them, and may also be scrutinized and defined through judicial review, it is not in conflict with the principle of clarity and definiteness of the law.
（來電時間：AM9：00 ~12：00及PM1：30~ 5：30）