- 學位論文
憲法解釋制度的政治界限—以美國「政治問題原則」為中心
The Political Restraint of the Judicial Review—Based on the U.S.”Political Question Doctrine”
摘要
司法院大法官既然獨占違憲審查權，從憲法所賦予大法官的角色觀察，大法官無疑成為我國「憲法維護者」，必須挺身捍衛及維持憲法秩序，然而，因憲政運作所發生之爭議，是否一律不考慮其性質，皆得交由司法大法官審查以定紛止爭？亦即，是否即使該爭議具有高度之政治性，大法官亦得肆無忌憚地介入審查之？此一命題成為各國公法學界及實務運作上的重大爭議點，在美國與我國均不例外，這也成為催生所謂「政治問題原則」理論提出的重要原因；再者，基於「權 力分立原則」，各種國家機關之權力行使皆應受有限制，司法機關所行使之權限亦同，此種限制除憲法或法律之明文者外，尚有立基於「權力分立原則」下出於權力之本質使然者，故由司法機關所操作之違憲審查權的行使亦有其界限存在，於此，不僅為學理上所公認，且在先進法治國家之實際運作中業已形成相關之制度，其中關於政治面的界限，即為美國法制下之「政治問題原則」。 而從我國司法院大法官之相關解釋可知，我國司法院大法官操作憲法解釋制度時，在系爭問題碰觸政治界限時，選擇援引「政治問題原則」迴避解釋，乃受到美國相關理論的深遠影響，而且關於「政治問題原則」的爭議一直持續到今日，迄今尚未發展出適用上的共識，因此本文希冀透過充分了解美國「政治問題原則」的理論發展與適用後，進一步對我國憲法解釋實務與學界對於應否採納「政治問題原則」的爭議點進行研究，首先，「政治問題原則」的意義為何？其於個案適用上是否已經發展出明確可資依循之標準？這些標準的理論基礎又為何？在權力分立之憲政體制下，掌握違憲審查制度的司法權為維護「權力分立原則」究應扮演何種角色？其中是否有「政治問題原則」適用之必要與空間？最後，於確立「政治問題原則」的理論內容後，判斷該原則於我國法制下的適用性為何？是否將因我國與美國兩國間的法學理論、法治經驗、法制背景及違憲審查制度等各方面之不同而造成窒礙難行？最終從中尋求啟發與靈感，進而分析出我國憲法解釋制度的政治界限及適用「政治問題原則」時之範圍及基準。
並列摘要
In our country, based on the Constitution, the Justices of the Constitutional Court monopolize the power of the judicial review. That is to say that the Justices of the Constitutional Court will act as the guardians of the Constitution. However, should all of the controversies, no matter what types they will be, always resort to the Justices of the Constitutional Court for final resolutions? Should the Justices of the constitutional Court even examine the political controversies? This thesis turned out to be a critical dispute in both the academia and legal practices. At the same time, it prompted the birth of” Political Question Doctrine.” Furthermore, based on “Doctrine of Separation of Powers”, the power of each branch of the government shall be confined within restraints. This consequence should also apply to the judiciary branch. Except for the publicized regulations in the Constitution or laws, these restraints also come from the nature of the power on the basis of “Doctrine of Separation of Powers.” Therefore, the operation of the judicial review should also have its restraints. And the political restraint of the judicial review mentioned hereafter is the same content as” Political Question Doctrine” in the United States. According to the related explanations from the Councils of Grand Justices, the Justices of the Constitutional Court are deeply influenced by the United States by quoting the” Political Question Doctrine” under the similar cases. Even though the discussions about the” Political Question Doctrine” still continue, as yet, we do not reach any consensus about how to utilize it. Under such circumstance, we need to analyze the U.S. experiences more thoroughly in order to clear the content of the ”Political Question Doctrine”and find the best way to exercise it in our country.