本論文探討的主要問題是:在「制度性分工下」,目前我國憲法法院審判權的運作與人權保障之間究竟呈現如何的關係?亦即透過憲法訴訟程序,得否使人民基本權能在遭受國家公權力侵害時,得以「直接、迅速、有效」回復或是獲得救濟,以符合法治國家保障人權的核心價值。研究範圍係:1.憲法法院審判權的意義與功能;2.完備的憲法訴訟程序之作用與必要的程序原則;3.憲法法院與一般法院對於人權保障的分工與合作,即司法制度性分工之意涵;4.為了落實人權保障,憲法訴訟程序(類型)中應有如何的設計。 主要以比較法學與法釋義學的研究方法與態度進行論述說明,在經過研究之後,本文認為當初二次戰後的憲法法院審判權之意義與功能,在經過五十多年後,已經有所轉變進而影響憲法訴訟程序的型塑。因而為了符合法治國原則,我國法政策上可以考慮引進德國法上的「裁判侵害基本權利的憲法訴訟」類型,以落實人權保障。
Thie thesis mainly focus on: in accordance with the conception of “Arbeitsteilung”, how the relationship of the Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit of Taiwan and the protection of human rights(Schutz des Grundrechts) is. In other words, could citizens hereof get rid of the “deprivation” (Verletzung) of their fundamental rights(Grundrechts) ? Accordingly, it’s the core value/scheme in the constitutional states(Rechtsstaat). Via the approaches of the study of comparative law and dogmatic(Rechtsdogmatik) research, the author contends that the function of Constitutional Court(Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit) has already transformed for human-rights protection from maintain a harmonic order of law in the past fifty years. Hereof, in the view of judicial policy, the authority of Taiwan may ponder to apply the “Urteilsverfauungsbeschwerde” from German. Hence, the judicial power could grantee and protect human rights so well.