月旦知識庫
 
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫事相關   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   重要期刊 DOI文章
篇名
法官聲請釋憲案例之評析
並列篇名
Commentary on Cases Involving Judges Petition for Constitutional Interpretation
作者 廖義男
中文摘要 自釋字第317號解釋開啓法官確信其應適用之法律違憲而得聲請釋憲之程序後,迄至2024年3月31日止,依本文之統計,法官聲請釋憲之案例(包括其中有人民聲請釋憲而併案審理者)共有67件。其中認同法律違憲之案例有32件、部分認同部分不認同法律違憲之案例有10件、不認同法律違憲之案例有25件。而25件不認同法律違憲之案例中,有2件嗣後變更見解改為宣告該法律違憲。又其中解釋或判決主文雖未宣告法律違憲,但將系爭規定限制其適用條件或範圍所為「限制性合憲解釋」或要求有關機關檢討改進之「警告性解釋」,亦是一種間接承認法律確有違憲疑慮之表現。涉及高度政治性法律侵害財產權有違憲疑義之案例,聲請釋憲之一般法官表現其維護「人權正確」之形象,但大法官不認為違憲而表現其「政治正確」之對比,令人感嘆驚奇!
英文摘要 Interpretation No. 317 opens the procedure for judges to petition for an interpretation of the Constitution if they believe that the applicable law is in conflict with the constitution. After that, as of March 31, 2024, according to the statistics in this article, the cases in which judges petitioned for constitutional interpretation (including cases in which also the people petitioned for the interpretation of the constitution and the cases were consolidated for trial). There were 67 cases. Among them, there were 32 cases of agreement, in which the law was declared unconstitutional. There were 10 cases of partial agreement and partial disagreement, and 25 cases of disagreement.
Among the 25 cases of disagreement, there were two cases where the views were subsequently changed and the law was declared unconstitutional. Although the main text of the judgment did not declare the law to be unconstitutional, it did limit the conditions or scope of application of the provisions as with“restrictive constitutional interpretation”or“warning interpretation”that requires relevant agencies to review and improve the law, are also indirect recognition the law does have the appearance of unconstitutionality and controversy.
Cases involving highly political legal infringement of property rights and doubtful unconstitutionality, the ordinary judges who petitioned for the interpretation of the constitution showed their image of upholding the“rightness of human rights”, but the justice did not consider it was unconstitutional and showed its political correctness. The contrast between“human rights correctness”and“political correctness”is surprising!
起訖頁 108-130
關鍵詞 法官聲請釋憲確信法律違憲限制性合憲解釋警告性解釋高度政治性法律Judges Petition for Constitutional InterpretationBelieve the Law is in Conflict with the ConstitutionRestrictive Constitutional InterpretationWarning InterpretationHighly Political Laws
刊名 月旦法學雜誌
出版單位 元照出版公司
期數 202406 (349期)
DOI 10.53106/1025593134907  複製DOI  DOI申請
QRCode
 



讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄