合憲性解釋之反思

Rethinking Constitutionality of Legal Interpretation

合憲性解釋與基於憲法的解釋常易引起混淆。前者是規範審查中的一種特殊制度，它的根本目的是為了保全規範，即通過選擇合憲的法律解釋來避免宣佈規範違憲；後者是指在個案中用憲法的規定或精神將法律中的一般條款或不確定法律概念具體化。合憲性解釋包括法律解釋和法律解釋的合憲性審查兩部分，但合憲性解釋並非獨立的法律解釋方法，只是法律解釋結果的一種選擇標準或優先規則。在德國，為了避免普通法院利用合憲性解釋來架空聯邦憲法法院的違憲審查權，學者建議採用一種分工模式，即普通法院發現有合憲性解釋的必要時向聯邦憲法法院提出申請。在中國，試圖用普通法院的合憲性解釋來繞開全國人大常委會的違憲審查權顯得不切實際。就增強中國憲法司法適用性而言，法院所能採取的路徑應是基於憲法的解釋。

Some scholars misunderstand the concept of constitutionality of legal interpretation and confuse legal interpretation according to constitution and constitutionality of legal interpretation. The former is a special institution of constitutional review and its fundamental goal is to maintain a norm and avoid to a norm declared as unconstitutional; the latter is to concrete general clauses in law or uncertain legal concepts by constitutional clauses. Constitutionality of legal interpretation consist of legal interpretation and constitutional review of legal interpretation, but it is not a kind of methods of legal interpretation and only a selection criteria or a prior rule between different legal interpretations. In Germany, to prevent ordinary courts from bypassing constitutional review of federal constitutional court, some scholars recommend a division of labor between ordinary courts and federal constitutional court. That is to say, when ordinary courts find certain legal interpretation is unconstitutional, they should petition to federal constitutional court. So, those attempts to avoiding constitutional review of SCNPC by constitutionality of legal interpretation are unrealistic. For promoting our constitution applied in justice, our ordinary courts should choose legal interpretation according to constitution.