Rawlsian viewpoint on J. Y. Interpretation No. 580

• Main Authors: Tsang-Pao Feng, 馮倉寶
• Other Authors: Wen-Chen Chang
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2007
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/24873254098005110125

碩士 === 臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 95 === According to Article 15 of the Constitution, property right of a citizen is expressly guaranteed. Why property right should be protected under the Constitution is for the sake that owning property helps to maintain human dignity, to contribute to freedom development of individual personality, and to serve other functions socially. On one hand, how and to what degree property right should be protected is still unclear. Even if property right is a constitutional right, on the other hand, it doesn’t mean there’s no boundary. What often haunts us is that where the boundary lies. The question we encounter mentioned above is how to make clear the content and the constraint of property right. The answer to it, however, can not be found in our constitutional law. In this paper, I would attempt to make the question explicit by adopting Rawlsian viewpoint developed in A Theory of Justice. Subsequently, comparison would be made between the theory of property right put forth by Honorable Justices in J. Y. Interpretation No. 580 and the Rawlsian opinion on property right in A Theory of Justice J. Y. Interpretation No. 580 is mainly about whether The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act would be in violation of the Constitution. Based on what is said in J. Y. Interpretation No. 580., only Article 19, Section 3 of The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act is unconstitutional and other articles are constitutional. From the viewpoint of “resource---utility” or “primary goods---utility” developed by Rawls, in contrast, The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act would be termed as inefficient and unfair and would need rectification or abolishment. It is not hard to find that a big difference exits between what Honorable Justices and Rawls say. According to my opinion, Honorable Justices’ neglect of aging time and too lax scrutiny of laws concerning the distribution of resources lead to this great difference.