迎接司法國的到來？以釋字第748號解釋為例

Towards Juristocracy? The Case of Taiwan

釋字第748號解釋宣布民法未能使同性伴侶成立永久結合關係，違反平等權與婚姻自由。本號解釋一方面除造成我國法制的重大變化之外，在另一方面則彰顯了司法院大法官的高度政治性。憲法乃高度政治性的法律，而執掌憲法解釋的憲法法院當然不會是一機械性、官僚性、及價值中立的法院。本文從本次釋憲案的受理、解釋內容的司法造法、解釋理由的司法對話、與大法官個人意見書的撰寫等四個面向，剖析憲法法院的政治性。從司法政治的角度來看，本號解釋是個好的政治性解釋。值得注意的是，本號解釋並不是司法院大法官唯一展現其政治性的解釋，此種政治性，一方面是政治司法化的結果，另一方面也帶來所謂「司法國」的憂慮，但考量到大法官過去展現的政治敏感度，以及其並無明顯的黨派化傾向，目前尚無需擔憂會產生法官治國的反民主情形。 In 2017, the Constitutional Court of Taiwan issued Interpretation No. 748, declaring part of Taiwan's Civil Code, which in essence prohibits same-sex marriage, unconstitutional. This Article tries to anatomize this decision through the prism of judicial politics, suggesting that the Taiwan Constitutional Court is a political, but not necessarily partisan, court. For starters, this decision seems to be a paradigmatic example of the judicialization of politics with the acquiescence of the political branches. In fact, one crucial function of judicial review is to solve thorny issues for politicians who face constituencies with antithetical stances. Second, this is another important case of judicial lawmaking. As mentioned above, the TCC designated a two-year deadline for legislators to amend the Civil Code, and provided its own solution for marriage equality if the legislature fails to do so. This is not the first case of judicial lawmaking. The third point that merits elaboration is the manipulation of separate opinions. In this case, the Justices refrained from issuing personal opinions, with the exception of only two dissents in this highly controversial case. Finally, explicit constitutional engagement is another feature of this decision. One plausible explanation of this unusual citation is the controversial nature of same-sex marriage. That is, encountering this vexing issue, the TCC endeavored to buttress its reasoning by citing a world-known decision. Notably, this Interpretation is not the only decision in which the judicialization of politics has taken place. The political maelstrom that engulfed the DPP government in the early 2017 set the stage for Interpretation No. 748. This decision demonstrates the political savvy of the TCC, which has applied a myriad of strategies to secure compliance. This by no means indicates that the TCC is a partisan tribunal, which is evident from the nearly unanimous votes of the ruling. It does suggest, however, that judicial politics plays a role in the process of decision-making.