司法權護憲之制度性分工（下）

A Systematic Distribution of Responsibility for the Judicial Power to Protect the Constitution (Part Ⅱ)

依據憲法第七十七、七十八、八十、一七一、一七三條、憲法增修條文第五條、大法官釋字第三七一、三九二、六○一號解釋，我國憲法規範內之司法權具有「制度上不同法院間之職務分工」之內涵，其係分派由一般法院審判權及司法院大法官釋憲權所共同行使，而法律違憲之最終解釋權則專屬於司法院大法官，是謂實質上掌理憲法法院審判權之大法官為「憲法之維護者」，當無疑義。如從一般法院審判權面向觀察，程序上自大法官釋字第三七一號解釋賦予一般法院法律違憲審查聲請權，已然確立法院聲請解釋憲法之程序；實體上，自大法官釋字第六五六號解釋開展基本權利之放射效力於一般法解釋與適用後，法院於個案裁判中應為合乎憲法保障人民基本權利意旨之法律解釋與適用，亦確立一般法院司法權行使須合憲之準則。從而，一般法院於裁判中不論程序上或實體上均應協力護憲之功能與體系，儼然成形。我國將於2022年1月4日施行之憲法訴訟法引進德國裁判憲法審查制度，更彰顯一般法院司法權行使應合憲之義務。因之，「憲法之維護者」之桂冠是否仍應由大法官獨占，殊值探究。本文基於維護憲法係所有國家公權力之義務，其應協力合作以實現憲法，司法權護憲義務不應由大法官壟斷之觀點，提出「司法權護憲之制度性分工」之理念，探討同屬於國家公權力之司法權的大法官釋憲權及一般法院審判權，均應作為憲法維護者的任務分工之制度內涵與功能體系，從比較德國法之觀察分析，對此相關問題進行規範、學理及實務之探討。

In accordance with the Constitution No.77, No. 78, No. 80, No. 171, No.173, the amendment No. 5, and J.Y. Interpretation No. 371, No. 392, No. 601, the judicial power embedded in the Constitution is a systematic distribution of responsibility within each level of court system exercised jointly by the general jurisdiction and the competence of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. The jurisdiction for final interpretation concerning the unconstitutionality of law is thus considered to belong exclusively to the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. The Grand Justices practically and undoubtedly are the judicial guardians of the constitution responsible for constitutional interpretation in the Constitutional court. From the general judicial viewpoint, J.Y. Interpretation No. 371 procedurally grants the right to general courts when petitioning for a constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, J.Y. Interpretation No. 656 essentially expands the effect of diffusion of basic rights concerning its explanation of and applicability to general laws. Accordingly, general courts should follow the judicial explanations applicable to guarantee people's basic rights congruent to the Constitution when making a ruling and uphold the constitutional guidelines when exercising jurisdiction. This consequently forms a pattern for the general courts in assisting and guarding the function and structure of the Constitution practically and procedurally. Moreover, the newly introduced ''Constitutional Procedure Act'' which will take effect on January 04, 2022 specifies that general courts are obliged to follow judicial guidelines which is based on the German Constitutional review system. Thus, it is worth examining whether or not the Justices of Judicial Yuan should exclusively hold the laurel wreath of guardians of the Constitution and its interpretations. Given that upholding and enforcing the Constitution is the obligation of public authority, this paper argues that the Grand Justices should not hold the exclusive power to guard the Constitution and proposes a notion of ''a systematic distribution of responsibility of judicial power to guard the Constitution''. This paper further explores the judicial power between the constitutional interpretation of the Justices of Constitutional Court and jurisdiction of general courts, contending that all levels of courts should be in charge of protecting the Constitution with a systematic distribution of responsibility and functional structure. A comprehensive systematical, judicial, and practical discussion concerning the judicial power in reference to the German judicial law is also addressed.