論「憲法上原則重要性」作為人民聲請釋憲之實體裁判要件

Review 'General Constitutional Significance' as a Adjudgment Condition of the Constitutional Complaint

司法院分別曾於2005年、2008年及2013年提出司法院大法官審理案件法之修正草案。其中，為提升大法官審理案件之效能，將「憲法上原則重要性」作為大法官不受理案件之事由；2013年之修正草案更於立法理由中明確指出此一機制係參考美國選案制度（Writ of Cetiorari）。惟「憲法上原則重要性」之意義，不僅立法理由未有說明，大法官實務上之運用亦未臻一致。本文首先梳理我國大法官就「憲法上原則重要性」之使用情況以及藉由相關訴訟法制探求可能之內涵，其次探討德國聯邦憲法法院法之接受程序及美國最高法院選案制度之發展及運作；並以彼邦之相關制度為基礎觀察我國大法官釋憲實務之運用情況。再次，以德國及美國相關制度檢討我國近年之司法院大法官審理案件法修正草案可能存在之問題，並為結論。

Judical Yuan had proposed an amendment of Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act respectively in 2005, 2008 and 2013. In order to enhance the effectiveness when the constitutional court adjudicating cases, “general constitutional significance” had become a reason as the case would not be accepted; especially in amendment of 2013, which had clearly point out in legislative grounds, this mechanism was reference to Writ of Cetiorari of the US. But the meaning of “general constitutional significance” did not only in legislative grounds been clearly interpret, also on the practical application of the constitutional court was not unanimous. This article will firstly clarify how the constitutional court operates this concept, and search it’s meaning through related procedure acts. Second, discuss the Annahmeverfahren of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and Writ of Cetiorari of US Supreme Court; and review the practical application of the constitutional court. Third, will analysis the amendment of Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act in recent years, and the conclusion at last.