刑事裁判之憲法審查

Constitutional Review of Criminal Judgments

我國於2022年初引入裁判憲法審查制度，亦即人民得對於確定裁判提出違憲異議之憲法訴訟，以保障其憲法上的權利，使基本權的拘束力得以及於所有國家公權力類型，使違憲審查機制不再將個案救濟排除於外，以此維護個案正義。但是，此一制度的建立也必然引發第四審的疑義，可能動搖既有的審級制度，因此，憲法法庭與普通法院兩者相互之間的權限界分至為關鍵。經本文考察德國實踐此制度之經驗與學說，亦見權限界分之疑義，因為，所應被審查的範圍難以清楚地被劃定出來，相關實務與學說見解對於審查標準亦頗為分歧。
有鑑於此，本文建議憲法法院審查普通法院裁判，可依照司法三段論的結構進行權限界分：首先，在大前提部分，涉及的是法律適用的法源，若有進行合憲性解釋之必要，或涉及罪刑法定原則者，應等同於法規範違憲審查進行審理。其次，關於小前提即事實認定的部分，所審查者為是否有調查證據違法而侵害公正之法律程序，以及在心證判斷上是否出現恣意，而非由憲法法院自行進行犯罪事實認定。最後，將具體事實與抽象規範兩者進行比對的涵攝部分，涉及的是對於該法律規範的具體理解，原則上雖屬於普通法院的專業核心領域，但仍為裁判憲法審查之對象，檢視法院判決之論證是否違反恣意禁止。

In early 2022, Taiwan introduced the system of constitutional review of court judgments, allowing citizens to challenge the constitutionality of final court decisions. This system aims to safeguard constitutional rights and ensure that the binding force of fundamental rights applies to all branches of government. By including court judgments in the review process, the mechanism no longer excludes individual remedies, thus promoting justice in specific cases. However, the establishment of this system raises questions about the role of the“Supreme Court”because it allows for the review and potential reversal of established judgments, including questioning the legal reasoning and factual determinations. Striking the right balance between the Constitutional Court and ordinary courts becomes crucial. Drawing from Germany’s experience with a similar system, there are challenges in defining the scope of review. There are also quite different opinions on the review standards in relevant practices and theories.
This article suggests that when the Constitutional Court reviews ordinary court decisions, it can delineate its authority according to the structure of a judicial syllogism. In the major premise part, it involves the source of legal application of the law. If it is necessary to interpret the constitutionality, or if it involves the principle of legality of crime and punishment, it should be treated as the same as the constitutional review of legal norms. As for the minor premise, that is, the fact-finding part, what is examined is whether the investigation of evidence violates the law and infringes upon fair legal procedures, and whether there is arbitrariness in the judgment of evidence, rather than the Constitutional Court’s own determination of criminal facts. Finally, the inclusion part, which compares specific facts with abstract norms, involves the specific understanding of the legal norm, but it is still the object of judicial constitutional review to examine whether the argument of the court’s judgment violates arbitrary prohibition.