名目憲法與憲法釋義間的乖離及張力──1947年至1991年間《中華民國憲法》在臺灣的規範效力速寫

Divergence and Tension Between the Nominal Constitution and Its Dogmatics: Sketch of the Validity of the Constitution of the Republic of China in Taiwan from 1947 to 1991

回顧並總括一段憲法史並不容易，也不單純；在當前臺灣政治社會動輒翻轉既往歷史論述的詭異氛圍中，速寫《中華民國憲法》自1947年至1991年間的規範效力，尤其難以找到適切的問題意識進行學術研究。本文從德國憲法學者F. Müller針對法學整體論的經典批判出發，借助Weber式「公民─自由主義」理想型理論框架，觀察這段期間《中華民國憲法》在憲法典、憲政秩序及憲法法3個面向彼此乖離卻又相互牽引的發展歷程，發現大法官釋字第793號解釋的單面向進步史觀底下，另有「令人不舒服的」真理：憲法作為「政治之法」，關於其效力總平行存在多元主張。

It is not easy nor simple when the history of a constitution is concerned. To sketch the development of the validity of the Constitution of the Republic of China within an academic framework is particularly complicated under the contemporary circumstances in Taiwan. This article begins with a brief review of the critique of F. Müller on legal holism relating to the German constitution law. In light of trio-dimensions of constitution code, constitution order and constitution law, the divergence and tension between the nominal constitution and its validity become even clearer. The single-dimensional progressive perspective held by the Majority of the Justices in the Interpretation No. 793 covers certain “inconvenient truth”, i.e. about the validity of the constitution as the “law of politics” there are always diversified claims.