效率VS 權利？ 民事程式繁簡分流改革爭論的實證審視

Efficiency vs Right An Empirical Review of the Debate on the Civil Procedure Reform of the Separation of Complicated and Simple Cases

2020年初開始試點的民事訴訟程式繁簡分流改革，已被2022年伊始全面推行的民事訴訟立法修正案所正式確認。然而，立法過程中“效率派”與“權利派”在改革思路上的爭論至今未歇。如何評價此次改革與相關的學術爭議？筆者所率團隊的實證研究表明，“效率派”與“權利派”主張的觀點均有一定道理，但並未得到改革資料的充分支撐。一方面，以效率為導向的繁簡分流改革雖在有限程度上提高了效率，但總體上難稱顯著，且各項改革在效率的提高程度上參差不齊，這似乎顯示改革效果已近天花板。另一方面，改革並未明顯妨害權利。儘管小額訴訟程式與獨任制改革似乎在抽象層面削減了若干程式性權利，但權利整體上尚未受到明顯減損。而包括電子訴訟改革在內的部分舉措甚至有利於權利實現。概言之，此次效率化的改革不一定與權利妨害相掛鉤，也並非與權利保障背道而馳。有鑑於此，未來應該在充分實證研究的基礎上，更為科學、客觀地評估改革的成敗得失與是否達至預設目標，檢驗改革是否契合特定的價值取向，繼而設計並試點接地氣、可操作、能達至的改革方案，最終有效推進民事訴訟制度的完善與發展。

The civil procedure reform of the separation of complicated and simple cases, which was piloted in early 2020, has been officially confirmed by the comprehensive implementation of the Civil Procedure Law (2021 Amendment) at the beginning of 2022. However, in the legislative process, the debate between the 'efficiency' and the 'right' on reform ideas has not stopped. How to evaluate this reform and related academic disputes? The empirical research of the team led by the author shows that the viewpoints advocated by the 'efficiency' group and the 'right' group are not fully supported by the reform data. On the one hand, although the reform of separation the complicated and simple cases which oriented towards the need for efficiency has improved efficiency to a limited extent, the overall effect is hardly significant, and the efficiency improvements of various reforms are uneven, which seems to show that the effect of the reform has stretched to the limit. On the other hand, the reforms did not clearly impede rights. Although the small claims process and the exclusivity reforms appear to have reduced some procedural rights at an abstract level, rights have not been significantly diminished. And some measures, including the reform of electronic litigation, are even conducive to the realization of rights. In a nutshell, this reform aimed at efficiency is not necessarily linked to the obstruction of rights, nor is it contrary to the protection of rights. In view of this, in the future, based on sufficient empirical research, it is necessary to evaluate the success or failure of the reform more scientifically and objectively, to test whether it has achieved the preset goals and whether the reform conforms to a specific value orientation; and then design and pilot ground-based, feasible, and achievable reform plans; at last, effectively promote the improvement and development of the civil procedure system.