“强制”婚檢抑或“自主”婚檢？ ——《婚姻登記條例》登記條件缺省婚前醫學檢查證明規定的比對式合法性分析

Is Premarital Medical Examination ""Mandatory"" or ""Autonomous""? — A Comparative Analysis of the Legality of the Lack of Premarital Medical Examination Certificates in the Registration Conditions Stipulated in the Marriage Registration Regulation

隨著我國經濟社會發展和人口結構變化，作爲婚姻觀、生育觀以及計劃生育政策之交集區域的婚檢制度，其在不同位階法律法規中的相關規定，在强制婚檢和自願婚檢之間進行著參差修改，相關備案審查案例在不同位階規定之間中以不同的“審查依據——審查規定”組合發生多例，並再次列舉於2021年備案審查工作情况報告的年報案例中。這裏涉及的，不僅有公民審查建議中主張的據《母嬰保健法》第12條審查《婚姻登記條例》第5條，也有審查研究意見中重點闡述的《民法典》第1053條，還有曾在同主題案例中被關注的《黑龍江省母嬰保健條例》等等。於是，婚檢爭議縱跨地方性法規、行政法規、一般法律、基本法律直至憲法，並呈現出“鄰階衝突、隔階一致”特有景象。分析這類具有同主題複現於多位階規定特點的某個備案審查案例，宜集案而查、統案而觀，採比對式合法性分析的方法：概括不同位階規定中呈現的實質强制婚檢、形式强制婚檢、自主婚檢等三種規範模式爲比對項，安置於根據對配偶健康狀况知悉情况而區分的“婚前知情且同意”“婚後知情仍同意”“婚後知情且不同意”三種邏輯上的案例場景中，按照“基本權利尊重與保障最大化之意旨”，分場景比對三類婚檢模式適用時人格尊嚴、婚姻自由以及出生人口素質等價值的綜合最優解。不同於單純的實體原理分析，比對性合法性分析本案時，還飽滿地呈現出“規範審查原理-實體內容原理”備案審查原理體系和系爭要點的複合結構。

With China’s economic and social development and demographic changes, the premarital medical examination system, as the intersection of marriage, fertility, and family planning policies, has been modified between compulsory and voluntary in different legal hierarchies. The relevant recording and review cases, one of which was listed in the annual recording and review working report (2021) again, frequently occur with different combinations of higher-level review basis and contentious provisions” between different levels of regulations. Here involved not only the review of Article 5 of the Marriage Registration Regulation according to Article 12 of the Maternal and Infant Health Law as advocated in the citizen’s review suggestion, but also Article 1053 of the Civil Code highlighted in the review and research opinion of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the NPCSC, as well as the Heilongjiang Maternal and Infant Health Regulation mentioned in another case on the same subject. That is to say, the dispute over premarital medical examinations spans from local regulations, administrative regulations, general laws, and fundamental laws to the Constitution, presenting a unique phenomenon of “normative conflict with the higher neighboring level while consistent with next much higher level.” In regards to cases with the same subject matter recurring in multi-level regulations, it is appropriate to gather cases on the same topic and adopt a contrastive legality analysis method. In other words, it is suggested to outline three normative models of substantively compulsory premarital examination, formally compulsory premarital examination, and voluntary premarital examination presented in different levels of regulations as contrastive items, and place them in three logical case scenarios of “aware and consenting before marriage,” “aware and consenting after marriage,” and “aware but non-consenting after marriage,” and contrast respectively the performance of three models in three scenarios in terms of personal dignity, freedom of marriage, and quality of the birth population, by the intent of “maximizing respect and protection of fundamental rights,” and arrive at an optimal solution at last. Unlike analysis of substantial matters purely, the comparative legality analysis reveals “a composite structure between the norms review theory and entity content theory”.