憲法法庭作為「第四審」？──論裁判憲法審查程序之本質及功能

Will the Constitutional Court Be “the Fourth Instance”?–Discussing the Essence and Function of the Constitutional Review of Judgement Procedure

憲法訴訟法於2019年1月4日修正公布，並自公布後3年施行。本法新增訂之裁判憲法審查程序，使人民聲請釋憲的客體不僅包含確定終局裁判所適用之法規範，更擴張及於確定終局裁判本身，可期待未來將發展出憲法訴訟之新紀元。關於裁判憲法審查程序之變革，是否使憲法法庭成為「第四審」或「超級上訴審」之地位？針對此項議題，本文即從憲法訴訟之法規範、國內外學理及實務之觀點綜合分析，探討裁判憲法審查程序之本質及功能，期能對學理研究提供思維方向，並供未來憲法訴訟法施行後從事憲法訴訟實務工作者參考。

The Constitutional Procedure Act has been amended in January 4, 2019 and willimplement after three years. In the Constitutional review of Judgement Procedure of thisAct, not only the statute or regulation relied thereupon by the final judgement but also the“judgment” are allowed to be an object to file a Constitutional Review by People. It willbe expected to start a new time of Constitutional lawsuit. With the changing ofConstitutional review of Judgement Procedure, will the Constitutional Court become thestatus of the “Fourth instance” or “Super Instance of Appeal”? With this respect, thisarticle will analyze and discuss the essence and function of Constitutional review ofJudgement Procedure from the perspectives of the Regime of Constitutional lawsuit,domestic and foreign theories and practice. It is expected to provide an inspiration foracademic research and a reference for Constitutional lawsuit practice worker after this Actcoming into force.