樂生院民因為北市捷運局新莊機廠之工程規劃，被迫搬離居住了50年以上的開放、矮房、方便輪椅活動之家庭式平房原址，遷入兩棟相互隔離之醫療大樓，大樓的生活環境對樂生院民而言，不僅活動不便、交流不易、無法安養、更是重回強制隔離政策下，外界對漢生病友殘疾之負面印象。然而，最高行政法院仍於2009年底作出肯認北市捷運局強制拆遷通知合法之判決，諷刺的是，判決作成時，兩大人權公約已於我國批准、施行，看似極度重視人權保障之我國，難道樂生院民真無法主張任何基本權利以拒絕搬遷嗎？本文欲以樂生院民之訴訟代理人、及法院皆未提及之家庭權作為樂生院民得主張保留原址的理由，嘗試透過《公民與政治權利國際公約》及其相關文件建構之家庭權，作為檢討樂生強制搬遷案的重心。首先探討長期居住於樂生療養院中之漢生病友是否構成「實質家庭」、而得主張適用家庭權，並論述樂生院民應受到如何之保護，進一步具體指謫最高行政法院98年度判字1515號判決。其中，本文將不僅以公約內文作為得適用之法規範，而將申訴案件及一般性意見一併納為可適用之法，並統整各申訴案件及一般性意見中，人權委員會曾表示對家庭權之各式定義、要件、及適用結果，力求於本案中能更完整、全面性適用《公民與政治權利國際公約》規範之家庭權。

Lo-Sheng Sanatorium was built in 1930 as a government-run leprosy institution and it was used for compulsory segregation until 1962. In 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court in Taiwan found a decision by the Department of Rapid Transit Systems to relocate compulsorily the residents of Lo-Sheng Sanatorium to be both lawful and reasonable. This compulsory relocation has drastically changed the Lo-Sheng residents’ way of life, which had been established for the past fifty years. However, when this judgment was issued by the Supreme Administrative Court, the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) had already come into force in Taiwan. Signing the ICCPR was meant to signify progress and to emphasize human rights protection in Taiwan; instead, the compulsory relocation of the residents of Lo-Sheng Sanatorium amounts to a deprivation of the right to family, and thus depicted the opposite picture of defending human rights. This article will focus on discussing whether the right to maintain residence in a particular place constitutes a right to family under article 17 of the ICCPR. Furthermore, the Lo-Sheng case can be examined as core research into the function of Supreme Administrative Court in Taiwan.

樂生療養院，家庭權，公民與政治權利國際公約

Lo-Sheng Sanatorium; Rights to Family; ICCPR