當憲法遇到國際私法──憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決評析

When Constitutional Law Meets Private International Law: Comments on Taiwan Constitutional Court’s Judgment Xian-Pan 8 of 2022

本號判決具有憲法、憲訴法及國際私法的多重意義，但在國際私法部分，多數意見引用兒童權利公約及國際兒童誘拐公約，對二者的條文的重要部分均未完整引用，對於引用部分的解釋，也有不符合條文原意的論述，難謂為正確之引用與解讀，不同意見書未論及於此，亦難謂周全。本文認為，本號判決的主要關鍵是在兒童意見表達權，並認為其可直接上溯到憲法基本權的層次，相對於將兒童意見納入兒童最佳利益的衡酌或考量，仍屬於較高的位階，如果系爭裁定違憲，應係其侵害兒童丙的意見表達權。本號判決漏列海牙公約基本原則的規定，而引用其二個例外條款，提出不符合條文原意的論述，甚不妥適；忽略非法帶走及扣留兒童者的行為的非法性，在權利人即時在我國法院請求返還時，不但未促成快速或立即返還兒童，反而認為非法扣留久了，就可以繼續非法扣留，偏離保護兒童人權之道，其見解尤應改正，以免各級法院誤從。

Taiwan Constitutional Court’s Judgment Xian-Pan 8 of 2022 relates significantly to the ROC Constitution, the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and private international law. The provisions and comments of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction were referred but not well cited and correctly interpreted. This problem was not found or touched by the dissenting opinions. This paper argues that the child’s right to be heard, rooted in its constitutional basic rights, is a higher norm above the rules requiring evaluation of a child’s will to determine its best interests, and is the possible, if any, reason to rule the relevant court decisions unconstitutional. The child was wrongfully removed and detained. The righteous guardian petitioned in due time in Taiwan’s court for prompt return of the child. However, the Constitutional Court ignored these facts, misunderstood the two cited exceptional clauses of the Hague Convention without mentioning its basic principle, and regretfully delivered the opinions leading to the effects that a wrongful detention lasting long enough may legitimize it. This paper concludes that it is contradictory to protecting the human rights of child and urges it to be corrected. The Supreme Court and lower courts are hoped to look to private international law and to keep away from the misguiding opinions.