英文摘要 |
The proclamation of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act on January 04, 2019 stated that it will be implemented on January 04, 2022, which will open a new era for the Constitutional review procedure exercised by the Justices of the Judicial Yuan based on a system of judicialization, adjudication, and court-based trial. The core of this new litigation system mirrored the Constitutional review system in Germany. After the implementation of the new act, petitions for a constitutional review will inevitably rank first in the overall number of petitions. However, the Constitutional Procedural Act appears inadequate in providing provisions of review proceedings on handling petitions. The task of the Constitutional Court Review Rules is to reduce caseloads and make the Justices focus on cases of constitutional significance and value. The Constitutional Procedural Act adjudicates the constitutional review procedure and its main regulations are adopted from the German law as its practical experiences can be helpful for Taiwan in implementing the new system. This article will first describe regulations and proceedings of the German Constitutional Court on reviewing petitions, focusing on the three stages of review processes: screening and dividing cases at the receiving and dispatching office, review by the Chambers, and deliberation by the judicial court. It will then refer to the German judicial model to examine the practices of court-based Constitutional interpretation system according to the framework of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. Furthermore, it will analyze relevant problems and make the following specific suggestions on the proceedings for handling petitions to the Constitutional Court: case division principle, assistance in screening by judicial clerks of the Constitutional Court, review report and procedural review put forward by the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court, decision on the Chief Justice and a draft decision proposed by the Constitutional Court, deliberation process, a schedule for submitting the Justices’ individual opinion. It is hoped that this article can provide research references for academic discussions and the trial rules of the Constitutional Court, which is currently under consideration by the Judicial Yuan. |