原住民族傳統「習慣」於民事司法上之適用與證明

The Application and Proof of Traditional “Customs” of Indigenous People in Civil Litigation

臺灣原住民族所保有之「傳統法規範」，至遲自1945年中華民國民法施行於臺灣開始，僅得在該法容許「習慣」構成法之內容的情形，以「習慣法」、「習慣物權」之地位成為法院之裁判規範，或以「事實上習慣」之形式影響法律之解釋適用。綜觀我國涉及原住民族財產、身分事件之實務見解，可知上述理論上適用「原住民族傳統法規範」之空間，或礙於民法第1條所定之位階關係、或因傳統習俗之證明困難，而未被法院積極運用。此事在原住民族固有文化之保護，陸續基於憲法增修條文第10條第11項、公民與政治權利國際公約第1條、第27條、原住民族基本法第30條成為我國法秩序內涵的背景上，實值非議而有待克服。本文乃呼應學說上「法學化習慣、習慣法」之倡議，以原住民族傳統「習慣」於我國民法上之定位及於民訴法上之證明為焦點，一方面闡述「原住民族傳統法規範」得直接或間接成為法院裁判規範之理論基礎與具體態樣，另方面說明法院應依循如何之行為規範以探知、調查其存否或內容。

The “traditional law of indigenous people” in Taiwan has been playing a marginal role in civil litigations at latest since 1945, where Civil Code of ROC came into effect. Under this Code, the existing “traditional law” could theoretically become legal norms being applied by courts when it constitutes “customary law” or “factual customs”. However, it is hardly to find court decisions recognizing this possibility actively, either due to the difficulty to prove such traditional usages, or because of the legal qualification of “customary law” as secondary source of law against statutory law. It must be criticized that this practice couldn't come in line with art. 10 para. 11 of Additional Articles of the Constitution of ROC, art. 1, 27 of ICCPR and art. 30 of Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, becoming part of Taiwanese legal system over the past two decades, all of which emphasize the protection of traditional culture of indigenous people. In order to ameliorate the unsatisfying situation, this article follows an appeal in literature to “make customs as well as customary law more jurisprudential”. It tries to indicate in which extent the “traditional law of indigenous people” could affect civil adjudication on one hand and explain how courts should collect information in this regard on the other hand.