憲法解釋、大法庭裁定與立法的權限互動──以司法院釋字第775號解釋與最高法院110年度台上大字第5660號大法庭裁定為例

The Interaction Among the Constitutional Court Interpretation, the Supreme Court Grand Chamber Rulings, and the Legislation: Taking the Constitutional Court Interpretation No. 775 and the Supreme Court Grand Chamber Ruling 110 Tai-Shang-Da-5660 as Examples

隨著大法庭制度與憲法訴訟法新制上路，憲法與法律之解釋適用將進入新的階段，大法庭、釋憲機關與立法者彼此間的錯綜複雜關係，將隨著大法庭制度與憲法訴訟新制，可望有新的面貌。舉例而言，司法院釋字第775號宣告刑法累犯規定部分違憲後，立法者並未於定期內修法，而最高法院大法庭卻採取訴訟法面向的解決模式，迴避了界定累犯實體上界線的問題。本案實涉及憲法法庭、大法庭與立法者三者間的權限劃分；憲法訴訟上憲法解釋（判決）效力、宣告模式與執行諭知之理解與範圍；以及大法庭的法續造權限，更遑論，事起刑事法的累犯釋憲以及大法庭所處理的審檢爭議，凡此即已凸顯出本案棘手之處。

Following the establishment of the Grand Chamber and the enactment of the new Constitutional Court Procedure Act, the interpretation and application of the Constitution and law will enter a new phase. The complex relationship among the Grand Chamber, the Constitutional Court and the legislators will have a new appearance after the establishment of the Grand Chamber and the enactment of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. For example, after the Constitutional Court Interpretation No. 775 decided that the part of the Criminal Code that increases punishment for recidivist criminals is unconstitutional, the legislators failed to amend the Criminal Code within the designated time period. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court used the procedural requirements to avoid the substantive issue of how to define recidivist criminals. This case involves the division of powers among the Constitutional Court, the Grand Chamber and the legislators; the effect of the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, different kind of declaration made by the Constitutional Court and the understanding and the scope of the notification of execution of the Court decisions; and the power of the Grand Chamber to fill the gap of the law. Not to mention that this case also is related to the constitutional interpretation of recidivist criminals, which is part of criminal law and that the dispute is associated with courts and prosecution handled by the Grand Chamber. These all show the difficulties of handling this case.