지방대육성법령상 지역인재 선발규정의 위헌성에 관한 연구

Abstract

The Act on the Development of Local Universities and Colleges and Regional Human Resources (the “Act on Local Universities”) mandates local universities and colleges to allocate a fixed percentage or more of their admission quota to local applicants, identified in the Act as regional human resources. Such a mandatory admission system has the following ground for further unconstitutionality. First, Section 15(6) of the Act on Local Universities violates the rule against blanket delegation, because: (1) delegation is implemented when there is no need; and (2) no predictability can be recognized. In addition, the regulation section 10(3), promulgated under the Act on Local Universities, likewise does not provide any predictability, and the relevant provisions under the rule allow arbitrary interpretation and enforcement by the administrative agencies, violating the principle of clarity. Furthermore, the system at issue interferes with the local universities and colleges’ right to the autonomy of institutions of higher learning and the right to carry out necessary education to pursue an occupation of their choosing held by the applicants who have graduated from universities and colleges in the Capital city area, by violating the doctrine against over-inclusiveness, a basic doctrine the government must comply with whenever it attempts to interfere with the basic rights of citizens. Finally, the scheme under the Act on Local Universities violates the principle of equality, as it imposes the obligation of admitting local talents only upon local law-schools, not upon the law schools located in the Capital city and its suburbs. There is no reasonable justification for such a discriminatory treatment of law schools. Accordingly, the scheme of selecting local talents under the Act on Local Universities must be stricken down, or if the government wants to continue the system, there should be legislative amendments and improvements to the system. First, when the Act on Local Universities delegates legislative authorities to rule-making agencies, the legislature must specify the maxim ratio of local talent admission in the Act itself, and only the authority to determine detailed ratios shall be delegated. Second, the timing to implement the system must be specified in the rules, considering the possibility of local law schools’ failure to fill the mandated ratio. Third, the definition of local talents shall be enlarged to include those who have graduated from relevant local high schools. Here, it should be noted that the government, central or local, shall fully support such local talents financially so as for such students to focus only on pursuing their legal education. Fourth, the duty to admit local talents shall be imposed also upon law schools located in the Capital city and its suburban cities so that the burden is shouldered fairly.