論第六屆大法官司法解釋之態度取向－司法消極主義與司法積極主義之分析

Attitudinal orientation of Judicial Interpretations of the Sixth Session of the Grand Justices─An Analysis of Judicial Passivism and Judicial Activism

吳德威

指導教授 ： 陳文政

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2008年)

摘要

採行司法違憲審查制度，係為當今憲政民主國家共同發展的方向。司法院大法官為我國憲法上最高且唯一之憲法解釋機關，肩負憲法賦予維護憲政制度之重責大任，素有「憲法守護神」之美譽。惟由非民選的法官，透過釋憲制度得逕行宣告民選的國會所制定的法律為違憲或無效，始具爭議性，即所謂的抗多數困境的問題。職是，大法官於權威性解釋憲法，審查、宣告其他國家機關行為之合憲性時，勢必面臨分寸拿捏的問題，亦即對於憲法上平行之其他國家機關(立法、行政等政治部門)之決策，應給予何種程度之尊重？申言之，大法官對於繫屬中之違憲疑義案件究應積極介入、嚴格審查，抑或消極尊重其他國家機關之決定，放寬審查，而介入程度及界限為何，是否有可預見之態度指標，又有否類型化操作之可能，實有深入探討與廓清之必要，此即本文所欲探討之「司法消極主義」與「司法積極主義」之問題。
本文將第六屆大法官所作成之解釋分為「基本權」與「憲政秩序」兩大種類，透過類型化的分析，探討第六屆大法官，於何種事務領域中採取傾向消極或者積極的審查態度，並分析其原因為何。最後提出審查態度取向的初步構想，以提供可資參酌之態度指標。

關鍵字

司法違憲審查 ； 司法消極主義 ； 司法積極主義 ； 第六屆大法官

並列摘要

Using judicial review of constitutionality institution is the common development direction of constitutional democracies nowadays. According the constitution of the Republic of China, Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan are the supreme and sole constructionist. They are vested with the authority to shoulders the heavy duties of safeguard and support of the constitutional system. For this reason, Grand Justices enjoy the good name of "guardian angel of constitution". The judges not selected by civilians are able to adjudicate the law enacted by the Congressmen selected by civilians to be Constitution-violating or ineffective. This is a controversial issue, what so-called problem of anti-majority dilemma. Therefore, being the guardian for the constitution by the government organization of interpret constitution, as they review the constitutionality of other government organization’s actions, must face the question which the discretion acts bashful, that is regarding constitution in parallel other government organizations (political department such as legislation or administration) decision-making, should give how degree respects to them? That is to say, grand justices should positively involve and strict scrutiny or negatively respect other government organizations decision and relax the scrutiny when review the case that may have doubt of violate of the constitution. When they face that situation, how involvement degree and boundary they can, whether has possibility of the unification vein to follow, also whether has possibility of the type operation, really need thorough discussion, this is the article wants to discuss, “Judicial Passivism” and “Judicial Activism”.
This article differentiates the judicial interpretations of the sixth session of the Grand Justices between the classifications of basic rights and constitutional order. Discussing the sixth session of the Grand Justices tend to take passive or active attitude toward what kind of affairs area, and why it is. Finally, we bring up initial ideas of attitudinal orientation of judicial review, which provides a referential index.

並列關鍵字

Judicial Review ； Judicial Passivism ； Judicial Activism ； the Sixth Session of the Grand Justices

參考文獻

王立達(2000)，〈法釋義學研究取向初探：一個方法論的反省〉，《法令月刊》，第51期第9卷，頁23-33。

吳庚(2000)，〈憲法審判制度的起源與發展─兼論我國大法官釋憲制度〉，《法令月刊》，第51卷第10期，頁9-29。

李建良(2004)，〈中央與地方的權限劃分與財政負擔－全民健保補助費分擔問題暨釋字第五五○號解釋研析〉，《人文與社會科學集刊》，第16卷第1期，頁73-115。

林超駿(2005)，〈試論大法官繼受外國法之特色與挑戰：影響繼受結果「質」的幾個關鍵〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第34卷第3期，頁73-164。

陳文貴(2005)，〈淺釋司法審查制度與裁判者義務〉，《法令月刊》，第56卷第2期，頁18-34。