憲法出，忠貞亡──釋字第791號解釋的憲法論證如何影響婚外性行為之民事責任

No Compensation for Adultery?: How and Why Does Interpretation No. 791 Affect the Liability of Adultery

釋字第791號解釋做成後，法律人大多認為婚外性行為之民事責任不受該號解釋影響。惟近來有地院判決基於該號解釋否定了基於配偶權之損害賠償請求，進而挑戰了「民事責任不受影響」此一觀點。
本文主張，「民事責任不受影響」的觀點未完整掌握該號解釋的論理。釋字第791號解釋雖僅討論了婚外性之刑事責任，但其理由書中：對性自主權作為受侵害權利之認定；並選擇較為嚴格之審查；在實質比例原則之操作中，藉改寫婚姻之意涵使其與忠誠義務，進一步削弱忠誠義務之地位和份量。上述論理皆可能對民事責任之論理設立障礙。又該號解釋由刑法與刑事訴訟法之實踐結果較多由女性承擔責任之情況，認有違憲法增修條文之促進性別平等之疑慮。而相似實踐結果亦出現於民事案件中，故相同疑慮亦存乎其中。而藉分析不同的侵權法請求權條文，本文認為該號解釋所產生之上述論證影響，亦不因改變侵權法上之請求權條文而有根本不同。故本文主張釋字第791號解釋確實影響了婚外性之民事責任；近來否認配偶權之判決，則未逸脫該號解釋之基本論調。

In Interpretation No. 791, the Constitutional Court invalidated the criminalization of adultery, but the issue of compensation for the same conduct was not addressed. Many lawyers believe that this means compensation for adultery is not affected by this Interpretation, referred to as the“no affect”thesis (NAT). However, some district court decisions have rejected claims for compensation and challenged NAT. In this essay, I will examine whether NAT is well-grounded in the Constitution.
Upon reviewing the argumentation of this Interpretation, I point out that the main arguments for the Constitutional Court to reject the penalization of adultery follow three steps: (1) reconstructing the meaning and weight of“autonomy of sex”, (2) deciding on heightened scrutiny due to autonomy of sex alone, and (3) weakening the inner link between marriage and the duty of loyalty. All these reasons constitute grounds against penalization as well as obstacles against compensation for adultery. Additionally, the Constitutional Court argues that the penalization may be unconstitutional and unequal because females are more frequently penalized in practice. However, the similar phenomenon also can be seen in the compensation issues: females are more frequently forced to compensate. Thus, the arguments from equality can also be applied to compensation issues. After examining every possible claim right for the compensation, I conclude that NAT is not sound. Even though the Constitutional Court’s decision only deals with the penalization of adultery, the constitutional grounds for compensation must also be affected, and the decisions of those district courts did not violate the main principle of Interpretation No. 791.