釋憲新制──司法化、裁判化、法庭化之憲法訴訟

The Judicial Reform on Institution of the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan Judicialization, Judgement, Courtification

1.司法院大法官審理案件法全文35條，因聲請案件趨於複雜而不敷使用，為使違憲審查制度貫徹司法權之本質，制定憲法訴訟法以建立公開透明之釋憲程序，並引進裁判憲法審查制度。2.新制以大法官組成憲法法庭，專責審理法規範及裁判之憲法審查案件、機關爭議案件、總統副總統彈劾案件、政黨違憲審查案件、地方自治保障案件及統一解釋法律及命令案件，採取裁判化及法庭化之訴訟程序。3.因襲德國之裁判憲法審查制度，賦予人民就其依法定程序用盡審級救濟之案件，對於受不利確定終局裁判，認有牴觸憲法者，得聲請釋憲，俾完善基本權之保障，然其僅屬於特殊救濟制度，而非居於第四審之地位。4.程序上之革新措施，包括：為兼顧民眾知之權利及公開資訊，經決議受理之聲請案件應於網站公開，且為匯聚專業意見與資料，供作憲法法庭審理之參考依據，爰參酌美國聯邦最高法院之「法庭之友」制度，並以顯名主義提高裁判作成之公開透明性。5.釋憲程序朝向法庭化，賦予當事人、訴訟代理人、辯護人及利害關係第三人比照閱卷聲請程序獲知資訊，並降低可決門檻（大法官現有總額三分之二以上參與評議，並經現有總額過半數同意），俾利違憲或合憲裁判之作成。凡此，憲法訴訟法宣告釋憲新制邁向司法化、裁判化、法庭化之新里程，本文亦依條文架構剖析各種憲法訴訟類型及要件。

1. The full text of Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act is only listed Article 35, which is insufficient to use due to the complexity of the petition cases. In order to make the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan comply with the essence of Judicialization, the Constitutional Court Procedure Act was formulated to establish an open and transparent constitutional interpretation procedure and introduced constitutional complaints into the Judicial Reform. 2. The Justices of the Judicial Yuan comprise the Constitutional Court, which, in accordance with this Act, has jurisdiction in respect of the cases below: constitutionality of laws and constitutional complaints; disputes between constitutional organs; impeachment of the President and the Vice President; dissolution of unconstitutional political parties; local self-government; and uniform interpretation of statues and regulations. What’s more, it adopts Judicial, Court procedural. 3. The review of constitutional complaints is a special remedy. After exhaustion of all ordinary judicial remedies, any person who believes that a final court decision that finds against her or him or a legal provision applied in such a court decision contravenes the Constitution may lodge a petition with the Constitutional Court for a judgment declaring the decision or the impugned legal provision unconstitutional. 4. The Judicial Reform on Institution of the Constitutional Interpretation, e.g. After the Constitutional Court finds a petition admissible, the petition brief and the reply brief shall be published on the Court’s website. As required by the case, the Constitutional Court may, on its own motion or the party’s motion, summon the parties and the interested persons to appear in court to give their opinions. The Court may also solicit expert opinion or information on relevant issues from appointed experts, scholars, authorities or associations. A judgment shall indicate the names of the Justices taking part in its rendering, include their concurring and dissenting opinions, and identity the Justice who authors the opinion of the court. 5. Parties, advocates, and defense counsels may apply for reading, transcribing, photocopying, or photographing the documents included in the dossier, or request a duplicate copy thereof with fees paid in advance. Except otherwise provided in this Act, a judgment shall be rendered by a majority of the total number of the incumbent Justices of the Constitutional Court with a quorum of two-thirds of the total number of the incumbent Justices thereof taking part in the proceedings. Constitutional Court Procedure Act is the milestone of the Judicial Reform on Institution of the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan–Judicialization, Judgement, Courtification