論對司法解釋的合憲性審查

為保證憲法的全面實施，應在全國人大常委會《關於完善和加強備案審查制度的決定》的基礎上細化對司法解釋合憲性審查的規定。在確定審查對象時，合憲性審查應排除最高人民法院的指導性案例和兩高的工作文件，排除地方兩院制發的司法解釋性質文件；在設計審查程序時，應將審查的重點放在司法解釋發佈之前的制定環節，此時全國人大常委會應尊重最高院在制定司法解釋中的主導地位。司法解釋發佈後，審查機關應通過合憲性解釋、溝通協商、提出修改議案、廢止法律或撤銷司法解釋等方式敦促最高院修改違憲的司法解釋；在理論上，司法解釋的合憲性論證過程也是最高人民法院作為解釋者、監督者和答覆者與包括全國人大常委會在內的各機關展開憲法對話的過程。在這一過程中，應依據司法解釋的具體內容和違憲可能性的大小，設計不同的過濾分流和審查處理程序，以實現權利救濟和法秩序統一之間的平衡。

To ensure the full implementation of the Constitution, it is crucial to refine the provisions for reviewing the constitutionality of judicial interpretations based on the Decision on the Recording and Review System. When determining what should be reviewed, it is important to exclude guiding cases of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), working documents of the SPC and the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP), as well as documents of judicial interpretation nature by local courts and procuratorates. In terms of the review process, the focus should be placed on the formulation of judicial interpretations before their release. During this stage, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) should allow the SPC to play a dominant role. After the release of the interpretation, the NPCSC should encourage the SPC to correct unconstitutional interpretations through methods such as presuming a constitutional reading, engaging in communication and negotiation, proposing alternative bills, amending laws, or nullifying the interpretation and so on. Theoretically speaking, the constitutional review process can be perceived as a form of inter-institutional dialogue. The SPC, acting as an interpreter, supervisor, and respondent, engages in a constitutional dialogue with the NPCSC and other authorities. Different filtering and review procedures should be designed based on the content of the interpretation and the likelihood of constitutional breaches. The goal is to strike a balance between protecting rights and maintaining legal order unity.