論親子關係訴訟血緣鑑定協力及其強制

The Obligation To Assist In Parentage Test And Its Enforcement In Parentage Actions

李子寧(Ts-Ning Lee)

指導教授 ： 許士宦

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.10500

摘要

2012年1月公布、6月施行之《家事事件法》，其第68條就血緣鑑定協力命令制度加以法制化，不但明確賦予法官命為血緣鑑定協力之權限，亦規範其構成要件、適用對象及程序權保障等，誠屬我國家事程序法制中重要之進展，符合世界各國之趨勢。鑑於此為我國全新之制度，有解釋論甚至立法論充實之需求，乃立於比較法與我國法研究基礎之上，拓深親子關係訴訟中血緣鑑定協力及其強制兩項基礎課題。茲將研究結論略示如下：

於血緣鑑定協力之義務基礎與內涵方面：首先，關於血緣鑑定協力之義務基礎，我國今後原則上雖應求諸《家事事件法》第68條第1項，但該條項所定以外之事件，立法者並無否定其運用血緣鑑定協力制度之意，因此根據血緣鑑定協力定性之結果，應回歸準用《民事訴訟法》第337條第1項後段之鑑定所需資料提供義務。其次，關於本義務之正當性，不僅應正面求諸人事訴訟之公益性、發現真實之需求與當事人證明權保障，更應將此制度評價為有效確保實現知悉血緣關係權利之手段；除正面完備論述外，也應負面排除構成基本權違憲侵害及與職權探知事件相容性之疑慮。就前者而言，無論係身體完整性權利或隱私權，基於知悉血緣關係為人格權之重要內涵前提下，鑑於血緣鑑定協力所追求之正當目的、手段和目的間間之合比例關係，應可正當化血緣鑑定協力義務之存在；就後者而言，職權探知主義與辯論主義兩原則並非絕對對立，回歸判斷事案解明協力義務和職權探知主義兩者相容性，兩者法理旨趣有互通之處。最後，關於本義務之內涵，法條文字似有適用事件之限制，惟不宜解為「排除其他事件運用血緣鑑定」之意，應解為立法者特別重視未成年子女最佳利益保護意旨之明白提示，其中未成年子女之獲悉血統來源之權利尤其應盡力協助其實現。另血緣鑑定必要性此一裁量性構成要件為制度之核心，於家事裁判實務可資運作之具體方向上，「有事實足以懷疑血緣關係存否」、「未成年子女最佳利益」與「利益衡量」等尤為法院應斟酌之重點。

於血緣鑑定協力之強制與制裁方面：首先，在解釋論上，僅「將當事人拒絕協力態度作為全辯論意旨之一部，於自由心證時斟酌」之自由心證說及「將拒絕協力作為證明妨礙而擬制真實」之擬制真實說兩者得納入血緣鑑定協力強制之妥適方法加以評估。由於前者無論於發現真實或促進訴訟之理念上均有所違，而後者則兼具血緣鑑定協力強制必要之敦促履行與制裁性格，且向來對於擬制真實制裁之質疑亦失公允，尤其是擬制真實經由適當之解釋、運作即未必導向違背客觀真實之發現，故評定後者始為我國當前妥適之血緣鑑定協力強制方法。其次，在立法論上，直接強制制度固曾為我國立法論層次所倡議，然我國親子法未必執著於血緣真實之追求，且對親子關係當事人施以直接強制，於我國法體系上尤顯價值判斷失衡，故不宜貿然引進。再者，由於先敦促血緣鑑定協力之履行，後施以拒絕協力之制裁為血緣鑑定協力強制之理想制度模式，而擬制真實有長於制裁、絀於敦促履行之憾，故引進證據法外間接強制制度當為今後制度面改善之應循方向，其中罰鍰之間接強制方法乃最佳之制度選項。

關鍵字

血緣鑑定協力義務 ； 事案解明協力義務 ； 鑑定所需資料提供義務 ； 勘驗協力義務 ； 擬制真實制裁 ； 間接強制 ； 直接強制

並列摘要

“Family Matters Act”, proclaimed in January 2012, has come into effect in June 2012. Aricle 68 of the said Act legalizes the order for parentage test in parentage actions. Besides, it regulates the requirements of the order, scope of application, protection of procedural rights, etc. This Ariticle has proved to be a significant progress in the legal system of Taiwan, and also corresponds to the global trends. Considering the stong need to supplement the interpretation from perspective of statute and even policy discretion, this thesis, basing on comparative law, aims to elaborate two-level fundamental issues: the obligation to assist in parentage test and its enforcement. The results of this study are summarized as follows:

1. The obligation to assist in parentage test:
First of all, the legal basis of the obligation to assist in parentage test in principle goes to Art. 68 in the said Act. The application of the said Article, however, is relatively limited in its scope. In other parentage actions, left out of the scope mentioned above, the legal basis of obligation to assist in parentage test should apply mutatis mutandis to Art. 337, paragraph 1, of Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, the justification of the obligation at present stage cannot be viewed as sufficient. The justification of such obligation, which includes stronge public interest, needs for truth discovery and protection of the right of proof, should be widened in its scope, that is, the protection of the right to knowledge of genetic descent. As to the doubts over the obligation, claiming it to be an unconstitional infringement of right to bodily integrity and privacy, this study judges the intervention as constitutional restriction on fundamental rights. Thirdly, the content of the obligation should be substantiated to offer enforceable guidelines for judicial practice. Among the requirements of the order, necessity for the parentage test is at the core of the institution. This study suggests that “facts establishing reasonable doubt over parentage”, “best interest of the minor child” and “interest balancing” are essential elements to be valued in the necessity requirement.

2. The enforcement of the obligation to assist in parentage test:
When a party fails to comply with the order for parentage test, there is the issue of appropriate enforcement of the order. From the perspective of statutory interpretation, there are only two possible explanations that could be considered for the assessment of appropriate enforcement. One is the general discretionary power to assess evidence, and the other is the discretionary power to impose sanction of taking the truth or facts as proven. The former counters the fundamental idea of truth discovery and trial acceleration in Family Matters Act, and thus is suggested no longer adopted in judicial practice in this study. On the contrary, the latter has necessary character of compulsion and punishment. Furthermore, some criticism against this sanction is more or less a result of misunderstanding. By proper interpretation and operation, the latter legal effect is not neccesarily going against truth. Therefore, the latter should be accepted and adopted in judicial practice, even though parentage action is dominated by “Untersuchungsmaxime”. From the perspective of legislative discretion, the ideal design of institution should contain two different types of enforcement. One is the enforcement that in the first place compels party to take parentage testing, and the other is the enforcement serving as final sanction for failure to comply with the order. Since sanction of taking the truth or facts as proven has already fulfilled the latter function, what our legal system lack is the former. This study believes that fine serving as indirect enforcement is the best choice among all the options available. This conclusion hopes to offer direction for improvement of enforcement system in the future.

並列關鍵字

the obligation to assist in parentage test ； the obligation to assist in clarifying facts ； the obligation to offer material needed for giving expert testimony ； the obligation to assist inspection ； sanction of taking the truth or fact as proven ； indirect enforcement ； direct enforcement

參考文獻

司法院編(1999)。《司法院民事訴訟法研究修正資料彙編(十五) 》。

林鈺雄(2007)。《刑事訴訟法(上)》。台北：自刊。

姚瑞光(1999)。《民事訴訟法論》，修正版。台北：自版。

許士宦(2005)。〈起訴前之證據保全〉。《證據蒐集與紛爭解決》。台北：新學林。

王玉葉(2007)。〈歐洲人權法院審理原則─國家裁量餘地原則〉，《歐美研究》，37卷3期，頁485。