法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論大法官釋憲程序中之「疑義」與「爭議」-兼對「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」的訴訟類型為釐清與辨正
編著譯者: 吳信華
出版日期: 2011.03
刊登出處: 台灣/中研院法學期刊第 8 期 /1-111 頁
頁  數: 73 點閱次數: 1584
下載點數: 292 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 吳信華
關 鍵 詞: 大法官憲法訴訟訴訟類型疑義爭議憲法疑義機關爭議抽象審查憲法訴訟法(草案)
中文摘要: 大法官依吾國憲法規定有解釋憲法之權限,其細部規定則規範於司法院大法官審理案件法中。依該法第五條第一項第一款規定:「中央或地方機關,於其行使職權,適用憲法發生疑義,或因行使職權與其他機關之職權,發生適用憲法之爭議,或適用法律與命令發生有牴觸憲法之疑義者」可聲請釋憲,而同項第二款及第三款亦有人民及三分之一立法委員在有「疑義」時可聲請釋憲之文句。究竟此等法條中之「疑義」與「爭議」應如何解釋,其與作為憲法訴訟上「訴訟類型」的「憲法疑義」及「機關爭議」又有何區別,而其內涵又係如何?就此不論於學理上及大法官釋憲實務上,均多諸有爭議。
實則「疑義」與「爭議」應有其憲法訴訟上特殊之定位與功能,依此而與「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」的界定產生有差異性、但互為關聯的思考,本文即提出「層次區別」的思維而為相關問題之探究與論辯。而實則本議題核心毋寧更應在於「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」作為憲法訴中「訴訟類型」之內涵,亦即應探究理解此二種訴訟類型之具體內涵後,方更能真正釐清其與「疑義」與「爭議」之關係,並一併解決現今於吾國學理及實務上相關爭議不休的問題。本研究因此即對憲法訴訟中機關聲請釋憲之「疑義」與「爭議」之概念-尤其「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」作為一種「訴訟類型」之內涵與架構-,予以全面性之澄清,並提出具體研究建議。
英文關鍵詞: Grand JusticeConstitutional LitigationLitigation TypesDoubtsDisputesConstitutional DoubtsAgency DisputesAbstract Constitutional ReviewConstitutional Litigation Law(Bill)
英文摘要: The Grand Justice is empowered to make judicial interpretation under the R.O.C. Constitution, and detailed regulations are provided in the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act. According to According to Article 5, Section I, Paragraph 1 of the Act, a person may petition for an interpretation of the Constitution to be made "when a government agency, in carrying out its function and duty, has doubts about the meanings of a constitutional provision; or, when a government agency disputes with other agencies in the application of a constitutional provision; or, when a government agency has questions on the constitutionality of a statute or regulation at issue." Under Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the same provision, legislators may also make petitions when there are "doubts" on constitutional provisions. Further elaborations are required as to what is meant by "doubts" and "disputes" and how they differ from "constitutional doubts" and "agency disputes" under the "litigation types" of constitutional litigation. These terms raise both theoretical and practical disagreements in the field of judicial interpretation.
The legal concepts of "doubts" and "disputes" should have well- defined positions and functions in constitutional litigation. They differ in meaning from "constitutional doubts" and "agency disputes" but still are conceptually related. To facilitate systematic discussion of the concerned issues, this article proposes an analytical framework of "distinctive layers." This framework will cover both theoretical and practical disagreements in the field of judicial interpretation. The aim is to show the contexts of "constitutional doubts" and "agency disputes" as litigation types. In other words, it is only after a thorough study of their contexts that relations between "doubts" and "disputes" may be clarified. The task of this research is thus to carry out an overall review of the structure and contexts of "constitutional doubts" and "agency disputes" as litigation types so as to clarify the concept of "doubts" and "disputes" in constitutional litigation initiated by government agencies. Concrete recommendations are proposed based on this paper's findings.
目  次: 壹、序言
一、問題之提出
二、問題之進階說明:「疑義」與「爭議」解釋上的多層次意涵
貳、「疑義」與「爭議」在大法官釋憲程序中之界定-「層次區別」的提出與思考
一、「疑義」與「爭議」在相關法條中的地位
二、「疑義」/「爭議」與「憲法疑義」/「機關爭議」之關係
參、學理與釋憲實務對相關概念的分歧見解
一、學理上的不同界定
(一)「疑義」/「憲法疑義」部分
(二)「爭議」/「憲法爭議」部分
二、釋憲實務案件操作上的紛雜
(一)實務對「疑義」與「爭議」相關概括性的說明
(二)「憲法疑義」的相關案例
(三)「憲法爭議」部分
(四)因案件複雜的混合思考
(五)司法院「憲法訴訟法」草案條文的觀察
三、小結
肆、「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」作為憲法訴訟的「訴訟類型」
一、「訴訟類型」為基準的觀察
(一)以「訴訟類型」為判斷的重要性
(二)「憲法疑義」/「疑義」與「機關爭議」/「爭議」在釋憲程序中的重新定位「層次-區別」的深化與印證
二、「憲法疑義」的訴訟類型
(一)問題的基礎說明
(二)對「憲法疑義」類型的質疑與討論
(三)「憲法疑義」於吾國的思考與應有定位
(四)小結
三、「機關爭議」的訴訟類型
(一)名詞及?涵的界定-「憲法爭議」抑或「機關爭議」?
(二)「機關爭議」類型在吾國之應有定位與?涵
(三)小結
伍、關於「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」實務案例的再檢視
一、否定「憲法疑義」所提出的相關解釋
(一)使大法官(會議)成為「憲政諮詢者」
(二)「憲法疑義」違反司法個案爭議解決之本質
(三)「憲法疑義」可轉換為其他類型
二、肯定「憲法疑義」存在之相關解釋
(一)若無「憲法疑義」類型則無法成案
(二)釋憲實務操作的明確肯認
三、「憲法爭議」實務案例的討論
四、本文見解與補充說明
(一)明確屬「憲法疑義」之解釋
(二)屬其他類型然實務解讀為「憲法疑義」之解釋
(三)以「機關爭議」為思考的特殊解釋
陸、結論與展望
一、本文結論
二、具體建議與未來展望
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列