日治時期臺灣的檢察官代理

On“Prosecutorial Substitute”in Japanese Colonial Taiwan

日治臺灣的檢察官代理一職，係由警部或兼任警部的法院檢察局書記兼任，以代行檢察官職務的特殊制度。受惠於近年各種檔案資料庫的整編與開放，本文得以廣泛地利用臺灣總督府的歷年職員錄、《臺灣總督府檔案》、《日治法院檔案》，以及《臺灣日日新報》等資料，發現曾在 1896 年至 1930 年間，於各地方法院（及其轄下出張所或支部）代行檢察官職務的 108 名檢察官代理，並據以探討檢察官代理制度在日治臺灣的建立、運作及定位。 檢察官代理的建立背景主要指向司法人事經費短缺所導致的檢察官定員不足，臺灣總督府因而自 1896 年起，便以律令引進警察人力來支援各地方法院（及其轄下出張所或支部）的檢察官職務。本文認為，這種做法不僅符合行政權凌駕司法權的殖民地統治現實，更反映出當時的法界尚且保有舊時視警察為司法權一環的觀念遺緒，致使秉持權力分立觀點的反對意見難獲伸張。至 1902 年時，鑑於各地方政府得以兼任檢察官代理的警部人力亦有不足，臺灣總督府遂採納檢察部門的建議，由地方法院（及其轄下出張所或支部）檢察局書記，以兼任警部的形式來代行檢察官職務，自此奠定由警部及兼任警部的法院檢察局書記分別兼任檢察官代理的體制。 透過實際人事部署的整理，本文也留意到檢察官代理的運作，毋寧即在反映臺灣總督府中央、檢察部門與地方行政首長，彼此基於共通或個別的利益，而在不同時期相互串連或拮抗的結果。要之，檢察官代理的跨部門屬性，一方面提供吾人觀察前揭機關互動的機會，另一方面也引人思索其定位問題。當主管機關以職務執行觀點視檢察官代理一職與檢察官無異，社會大眾進而直接以兼任的檢察官代理職位來定位兼職者的社會身分。在此情況下，曾有兼任者迷失於檢察官權限的行使、從而引發貪瀆的弊端；相對而言，這些兼任者也不無可能從中形成有別其本職的法曹認同。

In Japanese Colonial Taiwan, a “prosecutorial substitute” played the role of a functionally acting prosecutor. It was an adjunct position for the chief inspector or court clerk who held the chief inspector post concurrently. This article explores the establishment, development, and operation of the prosecutorial substitute system in Taiwan under Japanese rule through the review of 108 cases in district court and district public prosecutors’ office from 1896 to 1930 with sources from official archives and newspapers. Owing to financial straits in early colonial rule, Taiwan Sotokufu (the Government-General of Taiwan) restricted the prescribed number of prosecutors and had assigned the chief inspector as the prosecutorial substitute since 1896. This expedient reflected not only the expanding executive power under colonial rule, but also the legacy of an outdated viewpoint that the police were part of the judiciary. As a result, it was difficult to raise objection, based on the separation of powers, against the police having jurisdiction in the legal realm. However, by 1902, the lack of chief inspectors serving dual roles caused Taiwan Sotokufu to adopt the suggestion from the prosecutor general to assign the clerk of district public prosecutors’ office as chief inspector who also served as prosecutorial substitute. Prosecutorial substitutes were nominated by Taiwan Sotokufu, the procuratorate, and the local government; hence, any staffing change of prosecutorial substitutes would imply either cooperation or dissension among these three official departments. Moreover, in legal practice, the prosecutorial substitute was regarded as a regular prosecutor. While there were prosecutorial substitutes involved in malfeasant corruption; there were also those forming a professional identity in the judicial system distinct from their original position as court clerk.