| 關 鍵 詞： |
臺灣憲法法院；權力分立；司法造法；積極立法者；合憲性解釋 |
| 中文摘要： |
通說認為憲法法院在行使違憲審查權、宣告法律違憲時扮演消極立法者的角色，然而今日各國最高法院（含憲法法院）已經開始扮演更積極形塑憲政秩序的角色。本文從兩個角度分析憲法法院作為積極立法者此一發展：積極立法者的態樣以及積極立法者的類型。前者包括修法方向的指示、積極立法的效力、期限設定；後者則包括軟性替代立法者、補充立法者、剛性替代立法者。本文接著指出有許多因素將影響法院是否、以及在什麼程度內會扮演積極立法者的角色，像是司法審查的制度設計、違憲審查標的、以及比較法……等等，但沒有一個因素是決定性的。最後，本文分析憲法法院作為積極立法者的正當性，主張當法院處於備位的角色時，司法造法仍屬合憲。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Taiwan Constitutional Court；separation of powers；judicial lawmaking；positive legislator；conditional constitutionality |
| 英文摘要： |
Conventional wisdom has long held that constitutional courts are negative legislators when they strike down a law. Yet apex courts today play a more progressive role in shaping the contour of constitutional order. This article analyzes the role of constitutional courts as a positive legislator from two perspectives: the types of judicial remedies - such as judicial directives, binding decisions, and delayed declaration of invalidity - and the modes of judicial lawmaking, including “weak legislators,” “supplementing legislators,” and “strong legislators.” Several factors affect whether, and to what extent, courts may play the role as positive legislators, such as the institutional design of judicial review, the issues under consideration, and comparative constitutional law. None plays a determinative role, however. Finally, this article analyzes the legitimacy of constitutional courts as positive legislators through the prism of separation of powers, suggesting that judicial lawmaking should be justified if courts play merely a secondary role.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
一、積極立法者與消極立法者
二、「積極」態樣簡要整理
三、積極立法者的三種類型
貳、三種積極立法者與比較憲法案例
一、軟性替代立法者
二、補充立法者
三、剛性替代立法者
參、權力分立之評價
一、影響憲法法院積極與否的因素
二、憲法法院扮演積極立法者的必要性？
三、憲法法院扮演積極立法者的正當性基礎
四、各類型權力分立之評價
肆、總結與展望
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|