初論合議審判制度

On Adjudication by A panel of judges Excerpt

按，依我國法院組織法第三條第一項明文規定：「地方法院審判案件，以法官一人獨任或三人合議行之。」以往由於司法人力不足，特別是法官人力不足部分最為嚴重，故於地方法院審判案件，向來原則上係由法官一人獨任為之，例外始由法官三人合議行之。至二00三年間，司法院為提昇刑事訴訟第一審裁判品質，以強化人民對司法之信賴，乃於刑事訴訟法增列第二百八十四條之一明定：「除簡式審判程序及簡易程序案件外，第一審應行合議審判。」而全面擴大刑事訴訟第一審（即地方法院）行合議審判之範圍。然於施行一段時日之後，因有部分基層法官認為刑事案件大幅擴張合議審判範圍造成法官案件負擔嚴重增加、人力窘迫之困境，乃連署發起反制運動，建請司法院廢除此制，並引起民間團體之重視及討論。司法院遂於二00六年間對於刑事訴訟因第一審法院採取全面合議審判，造成法官人力不堪負荷之現象，乃透過立法委員提出修正上述刑事訴訟法第二百八十四條之一，其修正條文內容為：「除簡式審判程序、簡易程序案件及第三百七十六條第一款第二款所列之罪之案件外，第一審應行合議審判。」因而大幅減縮第一審刑事行合議審判之範圍，藉以減輕第一審法官之工作負擔。然查，法院審判之所以採行合議制度，其目的乃在於經由多數法官參與審判，集思廣益，進而廣納各種意見，並於案件之進行、證據之調查取捨、法律之適用等方面，藉由參與審判之多數法官於評議時，能各自表達法律專業意見，互相討論啟發，以作成決定，故任何一個法官之意見自均足以影響其他參與合議之法官的決定。此一審判方式應有助於法院作成正確之裁判，而為有利於人民。然於我國，職司審判之法官卻群對其加以反對，司法院又減縮合議審判範圍之作法，是否妥當？值得討論。

In pursuance to the Court Organization Act, §3, I, which provides that “the local court adjudges cases by one judge or a three-judge panel.” In the past, owing to the shortage of judicial personnel—among them, the judges in particular—the cases in the trial court have mostly been decided by one judge, and only by exception would a case be adjudged by a panel of judges. In 2003, the Judicial Yuan made an amendment to the Criminal Procedure, the predecessor of now §284-1, which provides that “except in summary adjudication and cases under summary procedure, the court of the first instance shall be conducted by a panel of judges,” and, by so doing, thoroughly broadened the scope of a panel of judges adjudications in the trial court. It was made to promote the quality of the adjudication in the court of the first instance and to reinforce the confidence of the people in the judiciary. Enforced for some time thereafter, however, this rule of law, which radically broadened the scope of three-judge adjudications at the trial court, was criticized by some trial judges for it tended to aggravate their already-heavy workloads and worsen the conditions of the shortage of personnel. They then initiated a boycott, proposing the Judicial Yuan to abrogate this rule of law, which in turn led some of the civil organizations to take this problem seriously too. In light of this, the Judicial Yuan in 2006 tried to revise §284-1 by way of having the legislators to move to enact the current version, which provides: “Except in summary adjudication and cases of summary procedure and cases concerning offenses as are enumerated in §376, I and II, the adjudication in the court of the first instance shall be conducted by a panel of judges. This, if done, would of course greatly reduce the scope of a panel of judges trials in the trial court and hence alleviate the workloads of the trial judges. However, the reason why the adjudication should be conducted by a panel of judges is to secure the quality of decision by converging views from all sides for consideration and, while in adjudication, better investigating evidence, eliberating its admissibility, assessing the applicability of the relevant rules of law and so on. All participating judges can thereby set out their opinions, discuss with, and illuminate each other; so the view of any one of these judges who participate can affect the decision of the remaining judges. Thus, a panel of judges adjudication should apparently contribute to the rendering of the correct decision and benefit the people. It, then, is worth enquiring whether it is justified that trial judges should have risen together to object to it and the Judicial Yuan have reduced the scope of a panel of judges adjudication.