論憲法法庭作為替代立法者之合憲性──以訴訟權案例為中心

The Constitutionality of the Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators: Focusing on the Cases of Litigation Rights

如何劃出違憲審查者及立法者之權限範圍，實為司法違憲審查機制之永恆難題。而此一難題在憲法法庭作成之諭知有形成規範並且替代規範之性質時，則顯得更為棘手。本文之研究客體即聚焦在此種「以解釋或裁判替代立法之諭知」，嘗試分析並評價此種宣告模式是否逾越權力分立之界線。核心之問題意識係，「違憲審查者」之角色除作為「司法者」外，得否具有形成規範之功能而作為替代之「立法者」？又若可以代替立法者，憲法法庭又應如何代替立法者？
對此，本文發展出類似於比例原則之操作模式。針對「替代立法諭知作為手段」與「達成落實基本權保障此一目的」之手段目的關聯性，提出不同層次之審查重點。希冀能藉由審查模型之建立，提供未來於評析憲法法庭有以諭知為替代立法之相關解釋或裁判時，檢驗並評價個案中憲法法庭是否已經逾越了權力分立界線之標準。

Defining and separating the authority of constitutional courts and legislators has always been a difficult issue in the realm of judicial review, and it is all the more problematic when the declaration made by the constitutional court contributes to the formation of legal norms. In response, this thesis focuses on such declarations where interpretation is in place of legislation, while analyzing and reviewing whether this declaration mode is ultra vires from the perspective of the separation of powers. The core research question is as follows: is a constitutional court entitled to contribute to the formation of legal norms as a positive legislator? If the constitutional court is entitled, how should it act in such a role?
In response to the above problems, the research develops a modus operandi similar to proportionality, i.e. different tiers of review targets that examine the correlation between“declaration as judicial lawmaking”and“protection and implementation of basic rights”. By means of establishing a judicial review model, the researcher aims to offer a set of standards to examine whether the constitutional court has violated the principle of separation of powers in such cases.