海峽兩岸殯葬法規之比較研究: A Comparative Study of the Funeral and Interment Laws on Taiwan and Mainland China - Focus on the Funeral and Interment Management Law

By Ye Xiuwen and 葉修文

兩岸由於歷史因素而阻隔，在處理殯葬事宜亦產生一定變化，雖然兩岸政治 上處於對立狀態，然而經濟上的交流已無法避免，本研究目的旨在促進兩岸人民對雙方殯葬管理法制有所瞭解與完整認識，使法學界注意到此一法學的邊陲，並提供两岸人民處理殯葬事宜或有意進行投資殯葬事業者參考。本研究採取比較法，就兩岸殯葬管理條例之實體內容進行逐條比較。本研究結果如下：兩岸殯葬管理法規條文規範力度不同，台灣地區通常於〔殯葬管理條例〕中列舉細節；大陸【殯葬管理條例】通常僅具原則性規定。兩岸對節約土地都相當重視。兩岸皆禁止公墓外之埋葬。兩岸火化的推動方面，台灣地區以政府鼓勵方式進行，大陸火葬區強制火化。大陸禁止家族、宗族墓（塔位）、活人墳之興建，以及墓穴、塔位之生前預售；台灣地區並不禁止。台灣地區殯葬設施開放民間設置經營，

• Language: 中文
• Publisher: EHGBooks
• Release date: Sep 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9781647842987

Book preview

出版说明

作者從碩士期間及開始研究殯葬法規，中國大陸正蘊釀修殯葬管理條例之際，把過去手稿略為整理，以臺灣地區2002年和大陸1997年版本的殯葬管理條例進行比較研究，一來回顧兩岸過去殯葬管理制度，二來或可提供大陸修法參考。

兩岸由於歷史因素而阻隔，在處理殯葬事宜亦產生一定變化，雖然兩岸政治 上處於對立狀態，然而經濟上的交流已無法避免，本研究目的旨在促進兩岸人民對雙方殯葬管理法制有所瞭解與完整認識，使法學界注意到此一法學的邊陲，並提供两岸人民處理殯葬事宜或有意進行投資殯葬事業者參考。本研究採取比較法，就兩岸殯葬管理條例之實體內容進行逐條比較。本研究結果如下：兩岸殯葬管理法規條文規範力度不同，台灣地區通常於〔殯葬管理條例〕中列舉細節；大陸【殯葬管理條例】通常僅具原則性規定。兩岸對節約土地都相當重視。兩岸皆禁止公墓外之埋葬。兩岸火化的推動方面，台灣地區以政府鼓勵方式進行，大陸火葬區強制火化。大陸禁止家族、宗族墓（塔位）、活人墳之興建，以及墓穴、塔位之生前預售；台灣地區並不禁止。台灣地區殯葬設施開放民間設置經營，殯葬禮儀服務業以私營為主，殯葬設備、殯葬用品並不限制私人間買賣。大陸則以公營為主，也醞釀借助民間力量完善殯葬制度。在殯葬設施管理權與經營權方面，台灣地區殯葬設施管理權與經營權基本上相分離，大陸常將管理權與經營權混為一體。大陸明確規範對於少數民族殯葬習俗之尊重，台灣地區無此規定。台灣地區對於殯葬服務業的設立、登記與開業期限直接於〔殯葬管理條例〕明文規定由直轄市、縣（市）主管機關許可；大陸則將該等事項授權各地方主管機關，根據不同性質的殯葬設施經營單位，其審批層級有所差別。殯葬禮儀服務業方面，大陸通常依附在殯儀館。對於殯葬禮儀服務人員之規範，台灣地區僅具備一定規模者才須強制設置殯葬禮儀師；大陸並無強制專任殯儀服務員之規定，至於殯儀服務員之證照規範，有民政行業工人技術等級標準可依循。大陸對運輸屍體必須進行必要的技術處理，台灣地區並無強制規範。

符號及用語說明：

一、為避免两岸法規名稱相同而混淆之問題，談及大陸法規、政府文件以【】為標誌，台灣地區法規、政府文件則以〔〕為標誌。

二、本文對於兩岸之個別名稱，分別稱呼為台灣地區（以下簡稱台灣）與中國大陸（以下簡稱大陸）， 此係站在較為客觀且明確之立場所用之名稱。若同時提及「台灣」與「大陸」 者，則以「兩岸」稱呼之。

三、就法規條文之書寫名稱兩岸有些差異，依台灣〔中央法規標準法〕第 8 條， 法規條文於條以下得分為「項、款、目」；依大陸【立法法】第 54 條：「法 律根據內容需要，可以分編、章、節、條、款、項、目」。可見大陸對於條 文款項之稱謂與台灣相反，本文統一採用台灣〔中央法規標準法〕第 8 條之 分類規定，依序稱「條、項、款、目」。

四、就法律用語，台灣與大陸在殯葬管理條例中，用語不一部分，原則上全採台 灣用語。例如大陸【殯葬管理條例】之「遺體」本文以「屍體」代之；「墓 穴」本文以「墓基」代之；「骨灰格位」本文以「骨灰（骸）櫃」代之。但 對法條或文件的全文引用部分，為求不失原義，其引用文字盡量避免更動。

本書感謝玉林師範學院高層次人才科研啟動基金專案課題編號：G2019SK02。

葉修文 2022年5月

Publication Instructions

Taiwan and Mainland China were differentiated in managing funeral and interment service because of the historical segregation. Although both parties are opposed to each other politically, the economical trading has been unable to avoid; besides, the economic trading power is usually the resource to sustain a country’s political power. Therefore, how to utilize Taiwan’s advantages in funeral and interment service, such as advanced techniques, human elite and extensive capital, to compete and also cooperate with China under the structure of internationalization and globalization depends on the comparison and research of both parties’ regulations in funeral and interment service area. The purpose of this research thesis is to provide the mutual understand in regulations for people of the other party, to prompt the attention for law legislation of this minor area, and be the reference for Taiwanese people in regards of handling funeral and interment service in China or maybe the potential investment in this industry in China. This thesis uses comparative method, compares the physical content of both parties’ funeral regulations clause by clause and also gives the introduction of comparison of practicing right in lawsuit and litigation. The result of this research is as follows: The funeral and interment service management law of Mainland China and Taiwan regulate in different levels. Taiwan always lists details, but China only gives general principles. However, both parties take land saving into great consideration; hence, both parties forbid private personal burial unless it is in public facilities. In the movement of cremation; Taiwan government encourages people to do so, but China request everyone to be cremated. China does not allow private family or clan burial ground/bone ash tower, the building of pre-death grave, and the selling of cemetery space and bone ash tower before death; but Taiwan does not limit people to do so. 4 Taiwan’s burial facilities are open to personal business operation, the funeral and interment service are mostly operated by private business entity; the facilities and commodities are not limited for personal trading. China in the other hand is operated by government, and will open to private business in the future. In the management and operation of facilities, Taiwan basically separates the duty, but China combines these two areas. China regulates clearly about respects to minority races’ funeral and interment customs, but Taiwan does not list this type of rules. Regarding the establishment, registration and business operation validity of funeral and interment service, Taiwan states clearly in the Funeral Management Law that it needs to be authorized by municipal city or local county(city) government bureau; China turns it to local government and the examination is different by the type of service management unit. About funeral and interment service providers(mortician), in China, they usually affiliated with the funeral and interment facilities. As to the regulation of service staff, Taiwan has rules for setting a funeral director position when business entity gets to a certain size; China however does not require setting a responsible service staff. And China’s certification process of service staff adheres to the requirements of public administration worker’s technique level