「人民聲請憲法法庭裁判」審理流程之研究－以德國為借鏡兼論我國新制

A Research on the Review Proceedings of the Petition to the Constitutional Court: Illustrating the German Judicial Model and Expounding the New System in Taiwan

楊子慧(Tzu-Hui Yang)

《臺北大學法學論叢》 116期 (2020/12) Pp. 47-119

摘要

2019年1月4日公布，將於2022年1月4日施行的憲法訴訟法，開創我國司法院大法官釋憲制度全面走向司法化、裁判化、法庭化之新紀元，憲法訴訟新制之核心，在於採納德國裁判憲法審查制度。新法施行後，人民聲請裁判憲法審查，勢必居整體聲請案件量之首。針對人民聲請案件審理流程之規定，憲法訴訟法付之闕如。如何減輕案件量負荷，使大法官投注主要精力於具有憲法上重要意義與價值的案件，乃「憲法法庭審理規則」擔負之任務。憲法訴訟法裁判憲法審查程序，主要規範係繼受德國法，德國實務具體操作經驗可供我國施行新制之參酌。本文首先闡明德國人民聲請憲法法院裁判審理流程之規範與實務，聚焦聯邦憲法法院收受人民聲請案件由收發登錄處之篩案與分案、審查庭審查及審判庭評議三階段之審理流程。其後以德國模式為借鑑，基於我國憲法訴訟法架構，參照大法官釋憲之現制與實務，就人民聲請憲法法庭裁判案件審理流程之程序規範，分析問題並提出具體建議：明定分案原則、憲法法庭書記廳協助篩文、審查庭承辦大法官提出審查報告及程序審查、憲法法庭決定主筆大法官並提出裁判草案、評議流程、大法官個別意見書提出時程。期能提供司法院研修憲法法庭審理規則及學理討論之研究參考。

關鍵字

憲法訴訟法 ； 憲法法庭 ； 審查庭 ； 審理流程 ； 德國聯邦憲法法院 ； 書面審理 ； 審查報告 ； 程序審查 ； 裁判草案 ； 評議流程

並列摘要

The proclamation of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act on January 04, 2019 stated that it will be implemented on January 04, 2022, which will open a new era for the Constitutional review procedure exercised by the Justices of the Judicial Yuan based on a system of judicialization, adjudication, and court-based trial. The core of this new litigation system mirrored the Constitutional review system in Germany. After the implementation of the new act, petitions for a constitutional review will inevitably rank first in the overall number of petitions. However, the Constitutional Procedural Act appears inadequate in providing provisions of review proceedings on handling petitions. The task of the Constitutional Court Review Rules is to reduce caseloads and make the Justices focus on cases of constitutional significance and value. The Constitutional Procedural Act adjudicates the constitutional review procedure and its main regulations are adopted from the German law as its practical experiences can be helpful for Taiwan in implementing the new system. This article will first describe regulations and proceedings of the German Constitutional Court on reviewing petitions, focusing on the three stages of review processes: screening and dividing cases at the receiving and dispatching office, review by the Chambers, and deliberation by the judicial court. It will then refer to the German judicial model to examine the practices of court-based Constitutional interpretation system according to the framework of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. Furthermore, it will analyze relevant problems and make the following specific suggestions on the proceedings for handling petitions to the Constitutional Court: case division principle, assistance in screening by judicial clerks of the Constitutional Court, review report and procedural review put forward by the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court, decision on the Chief Justice and a draft decision proposed by the Constitutional Court, deliberation process, a schedule for submitting the Justices' individual opinion. It is hoped that this article can provide research references for academic discussions and the trial rules of the Constitutional Court, which is currently under consideration by the Judicial Yuan.

並列關鍵字

Constitutional Court Procedure Act ； Constitutional Court ； Chambers ； Trial Proceedings ； German Federal Constitutional Court ； Written Proceedings ； Review Report ； Procedural Review ； Decision Draft ； Deliberation Process

參考文獻

吳信華，憲法訴訟基礎十講，元照出版有限公司，2019 年。

廖義男，從釋憲經驗談釋憲理論與程序，憲法及行政法制，元照出版有限公司，2015 年。

Christian Starck 著，楊子慧譯，德國聯邦憲法法院法規審查程序中言詞辯論的意義及功能，司法周刊，第 1665 期，2013 年 10 月。

李建良，違憲審查程序種類之比較研究──憲法訴訟的法理辯證與制度選擇，東亞法學評論，第 1 卷第 1 期，2010 年 3 月。

楊子慧，憲法法院法規違憲審查之裁判類型與效力──以德國法為中心，並談我國之改革，國立中正大學法學集刊，第 43 期，2014 年 5 月。