從法學方法論法院解釋與適用法律之憲法界限──由高雄少年及家事法院110年度司養聲字第85號同性配偶收養裁定出發

The Constitutional Boundaries of Judicial Discretion on the Interpretation and Application of Laws from the Legal Methodology

關於同性配偶關係中之收養範圍，過去行政與司法實務基於司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法第20條的規範文義，僅限於一方收養他方配偶親生子女，始得為之。惟臺灣高雄少年及家事法院一則民事裁定則突破該施行法第20條規範文義限制，認為亦得收養他方之養子女。就同性配偶收養的議題而言，本為國內重大的政治、社會、性別及文化爭議聚焦之所在，法官就此尤應留意立法者對此所為之規範目的與規範意旨，否則即有僭越立法者與輕忽方法拘束之疑慮。本文之作亦旨在提請留意，縱令目的正當，亦不可忽略法官依法裁判與方法忠誠之憲法要求。

In the past, administrative and judicial practices only allow one party in same-sex spousal relationships to adopt the genetic child of the other party according to Article 20 of the Act for the Implementation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 (the ''Act''), which stipulated that adoption was only permissible when one party adopted the biological children of the other spouse. However, a civil ruling by the Kaohsiung Juvenile and Family Court has surpassed the limitations of Article 20 of the Act and stated that one party may adopt the other party’s adopted child. In the context of adoption by samesex spouses, this is a significant focal point of political, social, gender, and cultural controversy in Taiwan. When interpreting laws, judges should be mindful of the purpose and the intent of the legislators. Otherwise, there will be a concern of overstepping legislative authority and neglecting the constrains of the legal interpretation doctrines. This article aims to draw attention to the importance of considering, with legitimate objectives, the constitutional requirements for judges to faithfully adhere to the rule of aw and legal methodology.