일반적으로 공공요금이란 국민 생존에 필수적인 공공서비스이면서, 그 서비스사업이 독점성을 가지고 있는 경우에 부과되는 서비스 요금을 의미한다. 이러한 공공요금의 상승은 국민에게 많은 금전적 부담을 초래하여 국민의 생존권에도 큰 영향을 미치게 된다. 이와 관련하여, 최근 전기요금 부과조항에 대한 위헌사건에서 헌법재판소는 전기요금을 조세 내지 부담금과 구분되는 공공요금으로 보아 재산권 침해여부는 따로 판단하지 아니한 채, 위임입법에 대한 위헌심사기준인 의회유보원칙과 포괄위임금지원칙에 위반되지 아니한다고 보았다. 공공요금에 관한 현행 관련 법제는 공공요금의 결정에 있어 상위 법률에 그 대강의 사항도 규정하지 아니한 채 하위 행정입법에 지나치게 포괄적으로 위임하고 있는바, 공공요금 결정과정에 전적으로 공기업에 독점적인 지위를 부여하면서 그 소비자인 국민의 의견이 개입될 여지를 생략하고 있다. 헌법재판소가 이 점에 대해 깊이 있게 심리를 하지 아니한 채 단순히 법문언의 형식에 국한하여 재산권 침해여부를 생략하고 더 나아가 의회유보원칙과 포괄위임금지원칙에 위배되지 아니한다고 본 것은 판단 유탈에 가깝다. 이에 이번 헌법재판소 합헌 결정과 무관하게 장래에는 공공요금 결정과정에서 소비자인 국민의 권리가 절차적으로 보장되도록 의견제출, 청문, 공청회 등 이해관계자가 적극 참여할 수 있는 적정절차를 마련할 필요가 있다. 더불어 공공요금의 결정 및 그 부과 체계의 합리성을 담보하기 위한 별도의 독립 기구가 마련될 필요가 있는바, 미국에서 운영 중인 ‘공공요금관리위원회’와 같은 기구의 도입을 검토할 필요가 있다. 한편, 공공요금에 관한 행정입법에의 위임과 같이 현대 국가에서 위임입법이 지나치게 증대하는 현상이 헌법적 가치를 침해하지 않도록 위임입법에 대한 통제도 보다 강화할 필요가 있는바, 이에 헌법재판소의 역할이 매우 중요하다. 앞으로 헌법재판소는 날로 증대되는 위임입법의 헌법적 한계에 관해 의회유보원칙과 포괄위임금지원칙 등에 대한 보다 정치한 기준을 마련하여야 할 것이다.
Public charges are public services essential to the survival of the people, and service charges in which the service business has a monopoly. The increase in public utility bills causes a lot of burden on the people and has a great impact on individual people's right to live, such as property rights. In this regard, in the recent case of unconstitutional adjudication on the provision of electricity tariffs (Decision of 2017 Heonga 25 by the Constitutional Court on April 29, 2021), the Constitutional Court regarded electricity tariffs as public tariffs distinct from taxes or levies, and was unconstitutional as a form of mandated legislation. The decision was made to be constitutional on the grounds that it did not violate the parliamentary reservation principle and the comprehensive wage support principle, which are the review criteria. In order to implement the principle of the proper distribution of profits and costs in the public rate decision process and to realize the alternative function of competition through regulation, the government grants a monopoly status to public companies in determining public rates, but directly or indirectly allows them to regulate rates. intervening However, in order to fully perform these functions, the subject of pricing decisions is entirely left to the autonomy of public corporations, although pre-procedures must be prepared to ensure sufficient consumer monitoring and remarks. Therefore, in determining the utility rate, by reflecting the opinions of consumers so as to ensure the rationality of the regulation of public charges, the proper procedure that can ensure the rights of consumers procedurally, see Ho-Yong Lee, the previous paper, page 25. “There are social and functional differences between the US and Korea in the legal system for determining public charges, but the US public rate regulation is implemented in the form of a committee with certain ‘appropriate procedures’, and the role of the administrative committee and public hearings is the role. In the case of the United States, consumer representatives attending public hearings include officials from private organizations, but the representatives of local consumer administrative organizations will participate as representatives of consumers, not the government or business operators. Such an appropriate procedure in the United States has implications for Korea.” It is necessary to provide In addition, it should be possible to secure a way for consumers to increase access to information related to public charges. To this end, in order to guarantee the rationality of the regulation of public charges, it is necessary to establish a concrete organization that can monitor and reflect the opinions of the people. For example, it is necessary to discuss the establishment of a public rate management committee of the same model as in the United States, and an administrative committee or an interest representative system advisory committee, etc., as a public rate determining body instead of a self-determined administrative agency that decides public charges in Korea It should be reviewed as a decision-making body of In addition, it is necessary to establish a special committee on public charges to strengthen the right to investigate, to strengthen the investigation of corporate secrets, to disclose deliberation data, and to democratize public hearings. Stakeholders should be encouraged to actively participate in submissions, hearings, and public hearings. Meanwhile, the role of the Constitutional Court is very important in controlling the mandated legislation so that the increase in mandated legislation, such as this case and the administrative legislation on public charges, does not infringe on the constitutional value. In legislation, it is necessary to be wary of excessive expansion of mandated legislation and to devise effective control measures. You will have to work hard to set it up.