- 期刊
論憲法法庭與大法庭之統一法律見解：制度之比較及其與憲法審查制度之關係
On the Unification of Legal Opinions by the Constitutional Court and Grand Chambers: A Comparison Between the Two Systems and Their Relationship to Constitutional Review
摘要
本文之主旨，一方面係在探討憲法法庭與大法庭所為之統一法律見解制度，另一方面則在釐清統一法律見解制度與憲法審查制度之間的關係。憲法第78條所稱「司法院統一解釋法律及命令」，其意義係指不同機關適用法令產生法律見解歧異時，由司法院統一法律見解。此一任務，依憲法訴訟法、法院組織法、行政法院組織法之規定，目前由憲法法庭與大法庭共同肩負。雖然憲法法庭與大法庭均具有統一法律見解法庭之性質，但二者職司之統一法律見解制度，其程序發動者、程序性質與拘束效力，皆有一定之差異。未來，關於憲法法庭統一解釋法令之制度存廢，須將合憲性之問題納入考量。就統一法律見解制度與憲法審查制度之關係而言，一方面，憲法審查程序可能成為憲法法庭統一法律見解程序的中間程序，另一方面，憲法審查程序則會對大法庭之統一法律見解程序產生阻斷效力。憲法法庭之統一見解判決，以及大法庭之裁定，若有牴觸憲法之情事，得分別透過類推適用憲法訴訟法第42條第2項與第55條之規定，成為憲法審查之審查客體。
並列摘要
The aims of the present paper are to explore the unification of legal opinions by the Constitutional Court and Grand Chambers and to clarify the relationship between the unification of legal opinions and the constitutional review. Article 78 of the Constitution states that "the Judicial Yuan shall have the power to unify the interpretation of statutes and regulations". This constitutional provision means that when different agencies have different views on the application of laws, the Judicial Yuan will unify the legal opinions. Currently, this task is shared by the Constitutional Court and Grand Chambers in accordance with the provisions of Constitutional Procedure Act, Court Organization Act, and Administrative Court Organization Act. Although both the Constitutional Court and Grand Chambers are courts for the unification of legal opinions, there are certain differences in the initiator of the procedure, the nature of the procedure, and the binding effect. In the future, when discussing whether the system of unified interpretation of statutes and regulations by the Constitutional Court should continue to exist or be abolished, the constitutionality of the reform should be taken into consideration. Regarding the relationship between the unification of legal opinions and the constitutional review, for one thing, the constitutional review procedure may become an intermediate proceeding of the Constitutional Court's procedure for the unification of legal opinions, for another, the constitutional review procedure will block the Grand Chambers' procedure for the unification of legal opinions. If the unified interpretation judgment of the Constitutional Court and the ruling of Grand Chambers are unconstitutional, they may become the object of constitutional review. In terms of method, Article 42, Paragraph 2 and Article 55 of Constitutional Court Procedure Act can be applied by analogy.