專題論文
Thesis

從法理念探討違憲規範定期失效之違憲宣告 -兼評司法院釋字第 718 號解釋
To Study of Declaration of Temporarily Continuous Validity of Unconstitutional Law Based on the Idea of Law: With Comments on the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 718
全文下載 點閱率:906下載次數:26

編著譯者
李翔甫
出版日期
刊登出處
68
授權者
ISSN
1561-6312
地址
台北市士林區華岡路55號大賢館
電話
02-2861-0511
關鍵字
法理念;正義;合目的性;法安定性;定期失效;分配的正義; 平衡的正義;違憲審查;憲法訴訟法;集會遊行法
中文摘要
從大法官近來不斷作出不同程度之違憲但定期失效宣告之法規 範,所引發政府相關部門在個案執行及適用上,無所適從,乃歸因解釋 文內均未詳具理由說明義務,且憲法亦無明文規範此一憲法解釋方式所 致。面對此爭議,已無法透過法律科學的方法來闡釋,而須從「法外」 之「法理念」作為評價與判斷。 德國著名法哲學家 Gustav Radbruch 以「正義」、「合目的性」及「法 安定性」作為「法理念」的要素,本文即以此為基礎,探究其與違憲審 查之關係,並從比較法的觀察,了解奧國、德國及日本現行司法違憲審 查制度運作模式,分析我國如何先師法奧國制度,後併採德國制度之過程,據以在法規範宣告違憲但失效期日屆至前,其效力衍生之爭議問 題,應如何運用法律理念尋繹最佳之運作方式。 本文認為,大法官宣告定期失效之違憲法規範,雖形式上基於「法 安定性」,但實質上係課予立法機關從「合目的性」解釋儘速完成修法 義務;而司法機關應從「正義」,並以「合目的性」為補充,作成合憲 裁判;行政機關則應自「正義」思考,輔以量能原則,追求依法行政之 最大效能;原因案件之聲請人,則不受定期失效拘束,以落實個案「正 義」;並以此為基礎,評析司法院釋字第 718 號解釋,作為政府部門未 來施政之參考。如此,大法官藉用該制度發揮規範控制功能面向之目 的,始能完整實現。
英文關鍵字
The Idea of Law, Justice, Suitability for a Purpose, Legal Certainty, Periodical Expiration, Justice of Allocation, Justice of Balance, Judicial Review, Constitutional Court Procedure Act, Assembly and Parade Act
英文摘要
The Grand Justices’ recent judicial declarations of unconstitutional laws and regulations, with varied degrees of violation but temporary validation, have instigated a domino effect in which the related governmental organizations were bogged down in a state of being unable to enforce and apply the Judicial Yuan Interpretations to individual cases. The predicament may be attributed to the insufficiency of explanations in the Judicial Yuan Interpretation content, the method of which is not stipulated in the Constitution of R.O.C. Due to the complexity of the matter, a “jurisprudence approach”, involving the principles beyond the laws, may be required for the review of the Judicial Yuan Interpretations instead of the conventional approaches. Gustav Radbruch, a German famous legal philosopher, defined “the idea of law” with a triad of justice, suitability for a purpose and legal certainty, which forms the analytic framework of this study for the review of the relationship between the idea of law and the judicial reviews. A comparative legal idea is also employed to acquire the insights of Austria, Germany and Japan’s current practice of judicial reviews, with an intention to delineate the procedure of adopting Austria’s and later modifying with Germany’s judicial review practices to domestic judicature. This paper ultimately aims to formulate an optimal practice through the legal idea to resolve a derivative of legal disputes caused by the pending effect of the declared unconstitutional laws and regulations prior to its effective date, including the issues of prescription, the point of time at which the court’s judgement shall be pronounced and legal remedy of individual cases. This paper concludes that the Grand Justices’ declarations of the unconstitutional laws and regulations with temporary validation though were claimed to be promulgated on the grounds of the idea of “legal certainty”, the Legislature is essentially obliged to make amendments to the laws and regulations in accordance with the idea of “suitability for a purpose.” Furthermore, the judiciary’s judgements and decisions shall be consummated with the idea of “suitability for a purpose” from the perspective of “justice”. The administrative agencies shall include the perspective of “justice”, which is then supplemented by the ability-to-pay principle, in order to maximize their performance. The rights of the parties involved in an individual case shall not be forfeited after the effective date so as to fulfill the idea of “justice” in individual cases. The findings of this study formed the framework for the review of the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.718 and will serve as a reference for governmental organizations’ future administration, by which the purpose of Grand Justices’ judicial review, being served to supervise the integrity of the legislation, is made unequivocal.
目次
壹、問題意識 貳、法理念與違憲審查之關係 一、正義 (一)概念 (二)類型 (三)體系正義與立法、司法裁量 二、合目的性 (一)概念 (二)實質正義與立法目的 三、法安定性 (一)概念 (二)定期失效與司法造法 參、比較法觀察各國法制 一、偏向法安定性之奧國法制 二、偏向正義及合目的性之德國法制 三、偏向具體個案效力之日本法制 四、綜合觀察 肆、違憲法規範之效力與法理念之運用 一、無效涉及合目的性理念之判斷 二、定期失效日期涉及正義之判斷程序 三、原因案件之救濟涉及個案正義 伍、評述定期失效之司法院釋字第 718 號解釋 一、過渡期間限制與法安定性、正義 二、制度選擇與合目的性 陸、結論