釋憲時刻——初探司法院大法官的議程設定及其憲政效應

A Time for Constitutional Adjudication: A Preliminary Study of the Law and Politics of Agenda-Setting in Taiwan's Constitutional Court

為什麼只有若干極其少數的釋憲聲請案件，在某個特定的歷史時點上，成功地獲得了屬於它們的釋憲時刻？針對這個事涉我國釋憲議程及其憲政效應的重要課題，本文嘗試運用司法政治的理論觀點與分析工具，初步但是有系統地檢討臺灣司法院大法官議程設定機制的構成與實際運作，並針對相關制度實踐，提出批判與改革建議。本文首先嘗試勾勒出一個關於司法院大法官之議程設定的本土司法政治理論的雛形。除了發展出一個區分制度、總量與個案等三個層次之釋憲議程設定機制的分析架構，本文也析離出了「選案決策」以及「審結時機決策」兩種個案層次的大法官決策模式，並對設定釋憲議程的司法政治，提出了初步的設論與後續研究動議。本文繼而批判我國所採行與沿用的「半選案制」，指出其不僅無助於降低大法官選案決策錯誤之風險，還往往徒然地犧牲了司法的誠實。為使憲法訴訟法制得以確實有效地擔保、引導司法院大法官作出對的選案決策，本文另建議探尋「以司法政治導正司法政治」的制度改革策略。

Among the numerous petitions for constitutional adjudication, why is it that only very few of them—and even fewer in the recent years—have their days in Taiwan’s Constitutional Court (TCC)? To solve this puzzle/problem and provide policy suggestions for institutional reform, this article uses insights and analytical tools developed in the field of judicial politics to advance a preliminary yet systematic study of the law and politics of agenda-setting in TCC. This article first attempts to outline a descriptive and explanatory theory about the causes and consequences of TCC’s agenda-setting. In the course of analyzing the institutional, the aggregate, and the case-specific agenda-setting mechanisms in Taiwan’s constitutional adjudicative procedure in functional terms, this article finds, inter alia, that TCC not only has de facto power over case selection, but also can manage its agenda by timing its decisions sooner or later. This article also analyzes the behaviors of the major actors in TCC’s agenda-setting and generates some hypotheses to be tested by further empirical inquiries. On the normative front, this article argues against the existing ’semi-case-selection’ regime on the grounds that it fails to prevent decision error while aggravating the problem of judicial hypocrisy. In addition to entrusting TCC with full control over its docket, this article recommends reform measures inspired by the idea of ’harnessing judicial politics to fix judicial politics.’