裁判憲法審查與未成年子女在家事程序之正當程序保障：憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號判決之重要程序議題研析

The Constitutional Complain and Due Process for the Minor Children in the Family Proceedings

本文以111年憲判字第8號為對象，探討裁判憲法審查之對象、程序標的、聲請人適格及未成年子女之正當程序保障。家事暫時處分亦為裁判憲法審查之對象；關於程序標的，基於裁判憲法審查制度之目的，應本於聲請人之聲請意旨為解釋，依法官知法原則，除非聲請人空泛指摘，否則，在受理要件上，關於聲請標的不宜採過於嚴格之解釋。而在受理後，系爭裁判所涉之相關憲法上權利是否受到侵害，如具有重要性，均為審查範圍。在聲請人適格上，親權事件之父母子女間雖具有利益衝突，但考量我國程序監理人之實務運作現況，宜參考歐洲人權法院模式，承認得由父或母一方作為聲請人，而未成年子女為實質上當事人，其憲法權利如於系爭裁判受到侵害，憲法法庭始能適時地介入予以保護。 關於未成年子女之正當程序保障，家事非訟程序因採取職權探知主義，在舊法下已被批評容易忽略關係人之程序主體地位，因此特別增設許多保障關係人聽審請求權之規定，更明定法院應聽取子女意見。未成年子女如已有表意可能，然在任何審級之法院均未親自聽取子女意見，亦未選任程序監理人，並不符合家事事件法立法意旨及聯合國兒童權利公約，更不符合憲法正當程序之要求。

This article examines the object of constitutional complaint, the subject matter of the proceedings, the standing of the claimant, and the procedural justice for minor children, in the case of the Judgment of Constitutional Court (111) No. 8. The subject matter of the proceedings should be interpreted in accordance with the claimant's intent. Moreover, under iura novia curia, the subject matter of the claim should not be interpreted strictly in terms of the admissibility requirements. After the constitutional complaint is to be accepted, the scope of examination should be determined by the purpose of the constitutional complaint system, which includes relevant and significant constitutional rights violated at issue. In terms of the standing of claimants, although there are conflicting interests between parents and children in a parental rights case, it is advisable to refer to the European Court of Human Rights model. It recognizes the parent as the claimant and the minor child as the actual party, so that the constitutional court can intervene in a timely manner to protect the constitutional rights of the minor child if they are infringed by the decision in question. With respect to the due process protection of minor children, under the old law, the inquisitorial doctrine of family proceedings was criticized for neglecting the procedural status of the relator. As a result, provisions were added to enhance the protection of the relator's right to be heard, and the court is explicitly required to hear the child in person. If a child has the capability to express his or her opinion, but the court has not heard the child in person at any instance of trial nor has it selected a procedural representative, this would fail to fulfill the legislative intent of the Family Law Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the constitutional requirements of due process.