補充解釋與變更判決之研究—從釋憲實務到憲法訴訟法新制之體系考察與建構

變更判決源自我國釋憲實務所發展出的補充解釋，意指對先前已作成之憲法法庭判決或司法院解釋進行變更或補充。在憲法訴訟法將變更判決予以明文化之前，我國操作此種變更或補充者，為補充解釋，其係由司法院大法官會議的數個決議所建構，形成憲法訴訟上列舉原則之例外。在憲法訴訟法修正通過後，立法者於第42條第2項及第3項針對變更判決作出規範，然而是否足以取代補充解釋，其間具有什麼樣的關係，為本文所要研究者。本文從補充解釋出發，探討其於釋憲實務上之脈絡、類型、性質與意義等，再從憲法訴訟的角度觀察補充解釋與變更判決的訴訟法理，而後就補充解釋過渡到變更判決之關聯性進行論述，並說明各類型變更判決之應然與實然。最後進一步從變更判決之性質、要件、效力等面向建構變更判決之體系，並就憲法訴訟法的整體規範意涵提出立法建議。

關鍵字

憲法訴訟；憲法訴訟法；補充解釋；變更判決；列舉原則

並列摘要

The concept of alterations of judgment derive from supplemental interpretation, which was alterations or supplements to the Judicial Yuan Interpretations or judgments of the Constitutional Court. Before the amendment of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act in 2019, such alterations or supplements in Taiwan were made by supplemental interpretations. Those interpretations were constructed by several resolutions of the Council of Grand Justices, forming an exception to the principle of enumeration of constitutional litigation. When the Constitutional Court Procedure Act was amended, such interpretations were replaced by alterations of judgment in Article 42, sections 2 and 3. However, whether the replacement is appropriate and what kind of relationship exists between the interpretation and judgement are both research-worthy problems. This article will first discuss the context, types, nature and meaning of supplemental interpretation. Secondly, the article will review the jurisprudence of supplemental interpretation and alterations of judgment from the perspective of constitutional litigation. It will then go on to explore the transition from supplemental interpretation to alterations of judgment to illustrate various types of the latter. Last but not least, this article will further construct a system of alterations of judgment in terms of their nature, elements and effects to make legislative proposals to improve the current Constitutional Court Procedure Act.