| 關 鍵 詞： |
司法權；憲法之維護者；司法權護憲之制度性分工；憲法法院審判權；一般法院審判權；法律違憲之最終解釋權；法院聲請解釋憲法之程序；基本權利之放射效力 |
| 中文摘要： |
依據憲法第七十七、七十八、八十、一七一、一七三條、憲法增修條文第五條、大法官釋字第三七一、三九二、六○一號解釋，我國憲法規範內之司法權具有「制度上不同法院間之職務分工」之內涵，其係分派由一般法院審判權及司法院大法官釋憲權所共同行使，而法律違憲之最終解釋權則專屬於司法院大法官，是謂實質上掌理憲法法院審判權之大法官為「憲法之維護者」，當無疑義。如從一般法院審判權面向觀察，程序上自大法官釋字第三七一號解釋賦予一般法院法律違憲審查聲請權，已然確立法院聲請解釋憲法之程序；實體上，自大法官釋字第六五六號解釋開展基本權利之放射效力於一般法解釋與適用後，法院於個案裁判中應為合乎憲法保障人民基本權利意旨之法律解釋與適用，亦確立一般法院司法權行使須合憲之準則。從而，一般法院於裁判中不論程序上或實體上均應協力護憲之功能與體系，儼然成形。我國將於 2022 年 1 月 4 日施行之憲法訴訟法引進德國裁判憲法審查制度，更彰顯一般法院司法權行使應合憲之義務。因之，「憲法之維護者」之桂冠是否仍應由大法官獨占，殊值探究。本文基於維護憲法係所有國家公權力之義務，其應協力合作以實現憲法，司法權護憲義務不應由大法官壟斷之觀點，提出「司法權護憲之制度性分工」之理念，探討同屬於國家公權力之司法權的大法官釋憲權及一般法院審判權，均應作為憲法維護者的任務分工之制度內涵與功能體系，從比較德國法之觀察分析，對此相關問題進行規範、學理及實務之探討。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Judicial Power；Guardian of the Constitution；A Systematic Distribution of Responsibility of the Judicial Power to Protect the Constitution；Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court；Jurisdiction of General Courts；Jurisdiction of Final Interpretation Concerning the Unconstitutionality of Law；Procedures for Petitioning for a Constitutional Interpretation by the Court；Effect of Diffusion of Basic Rights |
| 英文摘要： |
In accordance with the Constitution No.77, No. 78, No. 80, No. 171, No.173, the amendment No. 5, and J.Y. Interpretation No. 371, No. 392, No. 601, the judicial power embedded in the Constitution is a systematic distribution of responsibility within each level of court system exercised jointly by the general jurisdiction and the competence of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. The jurisdiction for final interpretation concerning the unconstitutionality of law is thus considered to belong exclusively to the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. The Grand Justices practically and undoubtedly are the judicial guardians of the constitution responsible for constitutional interpretation in the Constitutional court. From the general judicial viewpoint, J.Y. Interpretation No. 371 procedurally grants the right to general courts when petitioning for a constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, J.Y. Interpretation No. 656 essentially expands the effect of diffusion of basic rights concerning its explanation of and applicability to general laws. Accordingly, general courts should follow the judicial explanations applicable to guarantee people’s basic rights congruent to the Constitution when making a ruling and uphold the constitutional guidelines when exercising jurisdiction. This consequently forms a pattern for the general courts in assisting and guarding the function and structure of the Constitution practically and procedurally. Moreover, the newly introduced “Constitutional Procedure Act” which will take effect on January 04, 2022 specifies that general courts are obliged to follow judicial guidelines which is based on the German Constitutional review system. Thus, it is worth examining whether or not the Justices of Judicial Yuan should exclusively hold the laurel wreath of guardians of the Constitution and its interpretations. Given that upholding and enforcing the Constitution is the obligation of public authority, this paper argues that the Grand Justices should not hold the exclusive power to guard the Constitution and proposes a notion of “a systematic distribution of responsibility of judicial power to guard the Constitution”. This paper further explores the judicial power between the constitutional interpretation of the Justices of Constitutional Court and jurisdiction of general courts, contending that all levels of courts should be in charge of protecting the Constitution with a systematic distribution of responsibility and functional structure. A comprehensive systematical, judicial, and practical discussion concerning the judicial power in reference to the German judicial law is also addressed.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、問題源起： 大法官應否獨享「憲法維護者」之光環？
一、大法官如壟斷「憲法維護者」之角色將導致法規範的泛憲法化問題
二、我國憲法規範之司法權具有「制度上不同法院間之職務分工」內涵
貳、德國法上司法權護憲之憲法基礎、制度分工與爭議問題
一、德國司法權護憲之憲法基礎與制度分工
（一）聯邦憲法法院審判權之護憲
（二）專業法院審判權之護憲
二、聯邦憲法法院審判權與專業法院審判權權限劃分爭議之開端－德國人民基本權利救濟之憲法訴訟程序
三、德國司法權護憲之制度性分工爭議－裁判憲法審查之審查範圍與基準
參、我國實務及學理就司法權護憲之闡釋
一、釋字第五八五、六○一號解釋： 大法官行使憲法解釋及憲法審判權， 大法官與各級法院為司法制度上不同法院間之職務分工
二、憲法學理對於司法權護憲之探討
（一）大法官為憲法之維護者，廣義上可認各級法院亦為憲法之維護者
（二）我國大法官解釋權和一般法院審判權對外都是司法權，也是廣義的審判權，司法權內部應區分解釋權和狹義審判權
（三）一般法院法官為憲法維護者，大法官為最終、狹義的憲法維護者，其他國家機關為廣義的憲法維護者
三、司法權由憲法法院審判權及一般法院審判權共同護憲之制度分工理念
（以上刊載本期）
（以下待續）
肆、我國司法權護憲之制度分工與功能體系
一、憲法法院審判權（司法院大法官釋憲制度）之護憲
（一）司法院大法官為憲法上之法官，具有憲法與法令之最終解釋權
（二）大法官護憲之程序法：司法院大法官審理案件法及憲法訴訟法
（三）大法官實體憲法解釋之護憲
二、一般法院審判權之護憲
（一）程序：法院聲請法律違憲審查－司法權護憲制度性分工之內部程序
（二）實體：法院裁判須作合乎憲法意旨之法解釋與適用
（三）憲法訴訟法施行裁判憲法審查新制後程序受理及實體審查問題
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|