法定法官原則，法官自己決定原則？──評司法院釋字第665號解釋

The Principle of the Legal Judge is the Principle of the Judge-Rule-Everything? - The Evaluation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 665

司法院釋字第665號解釋並未考察相牽連案件合併所涉及的相對利益，沒有挑剔系爭之台北地院刑事庭分案要點中容許具有司法行政職身分之法院院長與庭長，相當程度地介入相牽連案件的合併程序，也沒有注意到被併案被告的相對利益以及所需的程序保障，更沒有使用過去憲法解釋所建立之層級化法律保留理論，或是學說支持的重要性理論，決定該分案要點是否違反法律保留原則。這號解釋用一種相當寬鬆的標準，核可了台北地方法院法官會議所制訂出來的分案規則，儼然讓該法定法官原則淪為法官自己決定原則。更糟的是，該號解釋用一種籠統的論證核可台北地院的分案規則，阻礙法定法官原則應用於我國審判實務的細緻化，整體而言有害公平審判的實現。 In J.Y. Interpretation No. 665, the Grand Justices use the principle of the legal judge to evaluate the constitutionality of court rules governing the combination of related cases. However, the Grand Justices fail to see the prejudice the defendant might face when her/his case is tried jointly with codefendants. They also ignore the doubts the defendants and the society will have, when the chief judge of the court and other senior judges are involved with the substitution of judge. The Grand Justices even fail to give defendant procedural rights to oppose and appeal, if her/his case will be considered to be combined with other related cases. They have given courts too much leeway to make their own rules to assign cases. What makes things even worse is that the reasoning of this Interpretation is too vague and broad. It has thus altogether constitutionalized every rule governing case assignment and judge substitution. This paper wishes to urge the Legislative Yuan and the Judicial Yuan to revise relevant laws and rules to safeguard defendants’ due process rights and her/his right to fair trial.

In J.Y. Interpretation No. 665, the Grand Justices use the principle of the legal judge to evaluate the constitutionality of court rules governing the combination of related cases. However, the Grand Justices fail to see the prejudice the defendant might face when her/his case is tried jointly with codefendants. They also ignore the doubts the defendants and the society will have, when the chief judge of the court and other senior judges are involved with the substitution of judge. The Grand Justices even fail to give defendant procedural rights to oppose and appeal, if her/his case will be considered to be combined with other related cases. They have given courts too much leeway to make their own rules to assign cases. What makes things even worse is that the reasoning of this Interpretation is too vague and broad. It has thus altogether constitutionalized every rule governing case assignment and judge substitution. This paper wishes to urge the Legislative Yuan and the Judicial Yuan to revise relevant laws and rules to safeguard defendants’ due process rights and her/his right to fair trial.