人之圖像與憲法解釋

Menschenbild and Constitutional Interpretations

林子傑(Tsu-Chieh Lin)

指導教授 ： 葛克昌

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.02098

摘要

以釋字第372號與554號為例：1995年釋字第372號關於最高法院23年上字第4554號判例：「夫妻之一方受他方不堪同居之虐待，固得請求離婚，惟因一方之行為不檢而他方一時忿激，致有過當之行為，不得即謂不堪同居之虐待」認為並未全然排除民法第1052條第1項第3款所稱「不堪同居之虐待」之適用，因而為合憲之宣告。該號解釋對家庭圖像之預設為何？在保護人格尊嚴與維繫家庭價值之間，釋字第372號之闡釋，使得人之圖像在家庭圖像上產生如何之位移？又2002年釋字第554號檢視通姦罪有無違反憲法第23條之意旨，大法官認為通姦罪之立法符合憲法上比例原則，宣告合憲。此號解釋對家庭圖像之預設為何？而關於家庭價值維繫優於人格發展自由之論證結論，與釋字第372號解釋間有無產生衝突或緊張關係？如何調整？
本文之論證目標有二，一為劃出人之圖像（Menschenbild）概念的範圍，得以進一步深入理解何謂人之圖像（參照第二章），二為如何應用與具體操作「人之圖像」在憲法解釋上（參照第四章）。首先，闡述本文對「人之圖像」的概念內容理解（參照第二章第一、二節），包括「人之圖像」之背景視域以及截取部份之德國法治國歷史脈絡；再者，進一步延伸論述該概念之外延部分。吾人所指涉之「外延」，功能上須對該概念之理解有更為清楚之釐清，至少應「對比」與所欲論述之概念相類似之事物，茲以劃定彼此之間的核心意義、範圍與界限（參照第二章第三節），本文嘗試釐清人之圖像與人性尊嚴、一般人格權、基本權主體及胚胎、複製人間的關係。解析與劃定「人之圖像」概念及其範圍後，本文接著闡釋「人之圖像」在法學上之價值與呈現，此即「如何」在法學上操作與呈現人的圖像（參照第三章），包括人之圖像在法學上的價值、在個別法制上的呈現以及對人之圖像思考：語義、關係、對話與主體性。往後，則進一步論述本文另一部分的重點：人之圖像在憲法解釋上的具體操作，主要為嘗試「描繪」出大法官解釋上的部份人之圖像，而以數項議題為簡要解析對象（參照第四章）。最後，以「人之圖像對憲法解釋的功能性影響與實益」總結本文所論證之主要重點所在（參照第五章）。

關鍵字

人之圖像 ； 人性尊嚴 ； 法治國 ； 釋字第372號 ； 釋字第554號 ； 釋字第520號

並列摘要

For example ,Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.372：The maintenance of personal dignity and the protection of personal safety are two of the fundamental concepts underlying the constitutional protection of the people’s freedoms and rights. Our society expects that the institution of marriage should be protected by preventing domestic violence and by improving mutual respect between spouses. To determine what constitutes “unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation” as provided in Article 1052, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of the Civil Code, the courts should, case by case, take into account the degree of the mistreatment suffered by the injured party, the levels of education of both parties, their social status, and so on, and determine whether the continuity of the marriage is threatened. If the degree of mistreatment suffered by the injured party goes beyond the encroachments on personal dignity and security that would be tolerated by most spouses, this should be seen as unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation. The Supreme Court’s Precedent S.T. 4554 (Supreme Court, 1934) held that: “although a spouse who has suffered unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation is entitled to ask for a divorce, this does not include cases where the other party temporarily loses control and overreacts to the spouse’s misconduct.” This Precedent, which does not exclude the operation of the abovementioned fundamental ideas and social expectations if the other party’s overreactions threaten the continuity of the marriage, is not in violation of the Constitution.And then,No.554：Marriage and family serve as the foundation on which our society takes its shape and develops and are thus institutionally protected by the Constitution. The root of our marriage system lies in the freedom of personality, with such social functions as the maintenance of the order of human relationships and gender equality, and the raising of children. To insure an enduring and unimpaired system of marriage, the state may of course enact relevant rules to require the husband and the wife to be mutually bound to each other by the duty of faithfulness. The freedom of sexual behavior is inseparably related with the personality of individuals, and every person is free to decide whether or not and with whom to have sexual affairs. Such freedom is, however, legally protected only if it is not detrimental to the social order or public interest as it is so provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. Thus, the freedom of sexual behavior is subject to the restriction put on it by marriage and the family system.What’s the different between this two Judicial Yuan Interpretations？What’s the Justices preconception about“Menschenbild？What does the “Menschenbild ”mean？How to understand “Menschenbild ”？ Why did we have to bring up the subject of “Menschenbild ”？

並列關鍵字

Menschenbild ； Human dignity ； Rechtstaat ； J.Y.Interpretation No372 ； J.Y.Interpretation No554 ； J.Y.Interpretation No520

參考文獻

2002 《學術論文寫作研究》，翰廬圖書。

2000 〈法圈學說之意涵與法文化〉，中正大學法學集刊第3期。

2004 〈集體勞動法：臺灣法學的虛擬實境〉，載：《勞動基本權學術研討會論文集》，行政院勞工委員會勞資關係處編印。

Eilert Herms（Hrsg.）

2001 Menschenbild und Menschenwürde,Chr.Kaiser.