臺灣裁判憲法審查制度之難題及其解方

本文以「如何以憲法來審查裁判」作為「臺灣裁判憲法審查制度之難題」，進行論述，並嘗試解決之，即解決如何以憲法來決定裁判憲法審查案件是否受理、是否牴觸憲法，為此，依照功能法上難題與實體法上難題之區分，提出解決方案。其中，功能法上難題，係憲法法院「何時有權」審查一般法院裁判之合憲性，而實體法上難題，係憲法法院「如何」審查一般法院裁判之合憲性。本文為處理上述難題，首先，說明我國裁判憲法審查制度之依據、爭議、經驗及其衍生的難題；其次，闡述德國裁判憲法審查制度之經驗、難題及其解決方式，以供我國所繼受、參考或反思；嗣後，嘗試解決「如何以憲法來審查裁判」之難題。準此，對於功能法上難題的解決，有賴於憲法訴訟法第61條第1項之兩個實質受理要件的同時認定，尤其，憲法法院應視裁判憲法審查案件，是否涉及保障人性尊嚴與人格自由發展所必要，而判斷有無「憲法重要性」，進而才有權審查一般法院裁判之合憲性。對於實體法上難題的解決，憲法法院宜依照解釋憲法、解釋裁判、審查裁判之3個層次為之，其中，應審查一般法院裁判是否正確適用憲法，即是否善用「憲法取向之解釋」，方可論斷一般法院裁判是否牴觸憲法。

關鍵字

憲法訴訟法；憲法法院；憲法審判權；裁判憲法審查；法規範憲法審查；憲法解釋方法；憲法取向之解釋

並列摘要

This article discusses ＂how to review a final court decision based on the constitution＂ as ＂the difficulties of the system of constitutionality of constitutional complaints in Taiwan＂, and tries to solve how to use the constitution to decide whether the case of constitutional complaints is admissible or violates the constitution. To this end, this article proposes to solve the difficulty of functional law and the difficulty of substantive law. The difficulty of functional law means, ＂when＂ the Constitutional Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of a final court decision, and the difficulty of substantive law means, ＂how＂ the Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of a final court decision. In order to deal with the above-mentioned difficulties, this article firstly explains basis, controversy, experience and the derived difficulties of the system of constitutionality of constitutional complaints in Taiwan; secondly, this article expounds experience, difficulties and solutions of the system of constitutionality of constitutional complaints in Germany; finally, this article attempts to solve ＂how to review a final court decision based on the constitution＂. The solution to the difficulty of functional law depends on the simultaneous identification of the admissible requirements of Article 61 Paragraph 1 under Constitutional Court Procedure Act. That is to say, the Constitutional Court should judge whether the case of constitutional complaints involves the necessary protection of human dignity and free development of personality, and thus judges whether the case concerns ＂principles of constitutional significance＂. This allows the Constitutional Court to review a final court decision based on the constitution. In order to solve the difficulty of substantive law, the Constitutional Court should review a final court decision through three levels of interpreting the constitution, interpreting judgments, and reviewing judgments. The Constitutional Court should examine whether a final court decision has correctly applied the constitution, namely whether ＂interpretation according to the constitution＂ has been properly used, and then judges whether a final court decision violates the constitution.

並列關鍵字

Constitutional Court Procedure Act ； Constitutional Court ； Constitutional Jurisdiction ； Constitutionality of Constitutional Complaints ； Constitutionality of Laws ； Method of Interpretation of the Constitution ； Interpretation According to the Constitution

參考文獻

蘇永欽（2007），〈裁判憲法訴願？：德國和台灣違憲審查制度的選擇〉，《法令月刊》，58卷3期，頁4-22。http://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.200703_58(3).0001

王韻茹（2021），〈裁判憲法審查之裁判結果、宣告方式與效力〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，318 期，頁 28-44。http://doi.org/10.53106/1025593131803

吳信華（2020），〈論「裁判憲法審查」：制度的繼受、施行與展望（上）〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，67期，頁167-216。http://doi.org/10.53106/172876182020040067004

吳信華（2020），〈論「裁判憲法審查」：制度的繼受、施行與展望（下）〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，68期，頁1-54。http://doi.org/10.53106/172876182020070068001

吳信華（2022），〈「憲法訴訟法」的幾個立法缺失〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，322 期，頁 53-70。http://doi.org/10.53106/1025593132203

主題瀏覽