| 關 鍵 詞： |
策略行為模型；解釋案件變少；分別意見書；解釋門檻；橫看成嶺側成峰 |
| 中文摘要： |
為什麼司法院大法官解釋案件量少，而分別意見書量大？司法院認為現行法要求大法官解釋憲法，必須三分之二同意為主因，憲法訴訟法將憲法解釋門檻降為現有總額過半數，預計 2022 年實施。鑒往未必知來，憲法訴訟法否能發揮預期作用，一般審慎樂觀。本文在新法實施之前，反思大法官解釋為何解釋案件量少，而分別意見書量大的結構因素。本文藉助策略互動模型印證司法院的看法，同時發現高門檻導致司法院大法官防衛性駁回聲請，法官聲請案受理機率較高，少數立委聲請因選制變更變得困難，舉行言詞辯論等同預告案件（部分）違憲。少數大法官否決權導致爭議性案件久拖未決，妥協出來的解釋往往橫看成嶺側成峰，協同或不同意見書具有澄清個別大法官意見作用。這些複雜的結構因素，有哪些將隨新法而改變，又有哪些仍持續不變，有待進一步研究解答。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
strategic model；shrinking docket；separate opinions；quorum for passing interpretation；ambiguity of opinions |
| 英文摘要： |
Why has the Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) decided fewer cases while the number of separate opinions has increased remarkably? The Judicial Yuan believes that this institutional disorder manifests itself in the current law where passing a constitutional interpretation requires a high threshold. The Constitutional Court Procedure Act (CCPA) promulgated in 2019, on the other hand, intends to lower the threshold for constitutional interpretation. Before the implementation of the CCPA in 2022, re-constructing and explaining why the Court's docket shrinks when there is deep dissensus among Grand Justices remains a contemporary issue.
This article adopts a strategic model of judicial behavior to buttress the diagnosis of the Judicial Yuan with several findings about Grand Justices. For instance, the practice of defensive denial to review a case is commonly adopted by Justices in the hope of reserving the limited resources for the most significant cases or avoiding engaging in arduous cases. Cases referred by judges were more likely to be accepted by the Court. However, legislators from the minority parties may find it more difficult to file for constitutional interpretations after 2005. Moreover, Grand Justices tended to hold an oral hearing prior to holding a case (partially) unconstitutional. While difficult cases need more time to arrive at a compromise among Grand Justices, ambiguous interpretations and separate concurring and／or dissenting opinions in fact help to seek such a compromise. Only some of these findings may stand the test of time, and the consequences of the CCPA remain to be studied in the future.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、司法院大法官解釋的數量危機
貳、研究進路
一、分析模型
二、統計方法說明
參、危機的歷史起源與轉變
一、高解釋門檻壓抑解釋數量
二、分別意見書的作用
肆、危機與其他制度的關連
一、大法官對人民聲請案的選擇
二、大法官對法官聲請案的選擇
三、大法官對立法委員聲請案的選擇
四、言詞辯論與解釋正當性
五、解釋時間的策略選擇
六、合議制變化與互動策略
七、橫看成嶺側成峰
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|