提審之不法確定判決救濟—美國聯邦人身保護令之借鏡

我國法之不法確定判決救濟，對於被告保障極為不周，且救濟效果相當有限，亟待改革。目前，在我國得對不法確定判決救濟之途徑有二，一為刑事訴訟之非常上訴，二為憲法訴訟之裁判憲法審查。非常上訴僅得由最高檢察署檢察總長提起，並非受不法確定判決所害之人民所能主動聲請救濟，制度設計甚為不公，無以保障人民權利，且非常上訴制度之主要目的，是在統一解釋法令而非救濟被告權利，對於被告保障甚是有限。此外，裁判憲法審查制度之定位為違憲審查，並非冤獄救濟管道，在其他違憲審查案件之擠壓下，實難作為一專供被告救濟不法確定判決之途徑。如何強化、完善定罪後救濟制度功能，以及定讞刑事判決之正當法律程序保障，讓人民可直接就違法確定判決提出救濟，誠刻不容緩。本文之研究目的，即在於問求、探討如何架構我國人民主動對於不法確定判決救濟之制度。人身保護令為英美法傳統上用以解救人民受不法權力拘禁之即時救濟途徑，亦作為被告受不法確定判決諭知罪刑執行（不法司法權力拘禁）之救濟管道。美國繼受英國法後，聯邦最高法院引領聯邦與各州將視野恢弘於被告憲法權利之違反，大刀闊斧將聯邦憲法落實於各州。關於聯邦人身保護令發給之考量，審酌因素不僅憲法權利保障與避免司法不正義（冤獄）而已，當案件已然確定終結而再為挑戰，所付出之社會成本極大，對司法公信更是傷害，其間如何割捨、成全，實須反覆思量、錙銖衡酌。美國法聯邦人身保護令制度隨著時代變遷、國家、社會所需，維護確定判決終局性、聯邦憲法權利之保障與落實、避免冤獄等諸多考量下，乃不斷演進、檢討與改善其救濟功能。美國法實踐數百年之經驗累積與制度發展，殊值我國法觀摩與學習。本文借鏡美國法聯邦人身保護令，作為我國法現有不法確定判決救濟制度相關缺失與弊病之檢討與對照，並探討、分析將美國法聯邦人身保護令移植於我國提審法是否可行、適當，用以架構我國人民得主動聲請對於不法確定判決救濟之新制度。本文並進一步擬議我國提審之不法確定判決救濟新制度，建議於提審法明定凡人民受任何權力（包含司法權）之不法拘禁者，均得聲請提審，並逐一架構提審不法確定判決救濟之聲請要件、權利障礙事由、聲請、受理、審理、證據調查程序、裁定與救濟方式以及抗告救濟制度等，期能供未來立法者之採納與參考。

關鍵字

間接救濟；定罪後救濟；人身保護令；提審；非常上訴；裁判憲法審查

並列摘要

In Taiwan, the postconviction remedy has not afforded adequate protection for the defendant. In our country, there are two ways for postconviction remedy. One is the Extraordinary Appeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the other is the Constitutional Complaints of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. However, the Extraordinary Appeal can only be filed by the chief-procurator of the Supreme Prosecutors Office, not those who have been harmed by final judgments. Moreover, the Constitutional Complaints are designed for constitutional review rather than postconviction remedy, so it cannot provide specific relief for the defendant. Thus, it is the purpose of this dissertation to explore how to construct an appropriate system to guarantee the remedy for wrongful judgments. The writ of Habeas Corpus is an immediate remedy used in traditional Anglo-American law to relieve people from being detained by unlawful powers. After the United States adopted English law, the writ of Habeas Corpus is also used to relieve wrongful judgments, especially the federal Habeas Corpus. By this writ, the Supreme Court leads the federal and states to take a great view of protecting the defendant’s constitutional rights, and energetically implement the Constitution to the states. Hundreds of years of experience and institutional development in the practice of American law are especially worthwhile for us to observe and study. This dissertation reviews the shortcomings and drawbacks of the existing postconviction remedy law in Taiwan, and discusses whether it is feasible to adopt the Habeas Corpus as a postconviction remedy in our legal system. Furthermore, this dissertation constructs a new postconviction remedy system in Taiwan, and tries to propose its petition grounds, obstacles to relief, preliminary procedure, evidentiary hearings, final disposition, forms of relief, and appellate review. We hope that the suggestion of this dissertation will be translated to effect law in the future.