論民事強制道歉的違憲審查

Constitutional Court, Civil Court and Constitutional Review of Civil Law Based on the “Court-ordered Apology” Case

對於民事財產法體系而言，憲法基本權體系的審查，尚屬陌生；然而，憲法訴訟新制所引進的「裁判憲法審查」，勢將產生更大的「私法憲法化」浪潮。有鑑於此，本文遂以【強制道歉案】為例，討論基本權利體系是否可能對於「民事立法者」與「民事司法者」產生拘束效力。
民事法上諸多「基於法律而生」的義務，同樣構成國家行為對於基本權的干預措施；在此範圍之內，應與「基本權第三人效力」無涉。侵害名譽權的不法行為人之「道歉義務」，即屬一例，從而亦應受到基本權效力之拘束。
民法第195條第1項後段採取「法律效果層次的司法裁量」的立法技術。在此規範模式之下，「立法行為違憲審查」的重點在於：授權是否違憲。以【強制道歉案】為例，明白見諸立法理由之中的「登報謝罪」，乃是授權框架內的一種選項。系爭條文作為「課予道歉義務」的法律基礎，應受基本權體系──尤其比例原則──的檢驗。
對司法者而言，民事法院同樣亦應作出合憲的解釋適用或裁量。至於其比例原則的審查重點，並非僅限於「道歉聲明形式、內容的控制」或「狹義比例原則下利益權衡」，毋寧應審酌說明系爭規範之意旨、各種處分類型的取捨，以及個案各種利益之權衡等各項情事。

The fundamental rights are still unfamiliar to the civil law system. However, the introduction of "constitutional review of court decisions" in the new era is likely to lead to a stronger influence of constitutional principles in private law. In this regard, this article uses the court-ordered apology case as an example to discuss whether both "legislators" and "judges" in civil matters are bound with the system of fundamental rights.
Many duties in civil law, which are derived from the law, can also be seen as interventions by the state in fundamental rights. Within this context, the notion of "third-party effect of fundamental rights" should not be relevant. The duty to apologize of a wrongdoer in the defamation case is an example, and thus should also be subject to the “direct” effect of fundamental rights.
Article 195(1) of the Civil Code authorized the court to discretize the legal consequence. Under this legislative model, the focus of the "constitutional review of legislative acts" is on whether the authorization is constitutional or not. In court-ordered apology cases, for instance, it is clear that the “apology printed on newspaper”, which is included in the legislative records, is a possible option to the civil court within the authorized framework. This Article as the legal basis for the "duty to apologize", should be subject to the review of the fundamental rights, especially the principle of proportionality.
The civil courts should also make interpretations and judgments in accordance with the Constitution. When conducting proportionality reviews, the focus should not be limited to controlling the form and content of apology statements. Instead, it should consider the purpose of the norms, the trade-offs of various types of remedies, and the balancing of various interests in individual cases, among other factors.