論法官之懲戒──以法官法實施後之懲戒案件為例

On the Discipline of Judges–Taking Disciplinary Cases After the Implementation of the Judges Act as Examples

我國已制定法官法，就法官之地位、資格、任命、職權、監督、懲戒等事項以為規範。而法官法對法官之懲戒設有特別規定，顯有別於一般公務員之懲戒。即法官非依法官法不受懲戒，用以尊崇法官之地位及貫徹憲法保障法官獨立之本旨。
法官法明定成立司法院職務法審理法官懲戒案件，故法官之懲戒程序已朝法庭化、訴訟化，而審理程序則採取直接審理原則、言詞辯論原則、對審制度及辯護制度，並予以被付懲戒之法官最後陳述意見之機會等正當法律程序進行審理，並就法官懲戒之裁判採取一級二審之審級救濟制度
本文經細閱司法院職務法庭及懲戒法院職務法庭所作成之懲戒判決，不論於認定事實及適用法律上，均尚屬妥適。且不論係司法院職務法庭或懲戒法院職務法庭針對大多數之法官懲戒案件，均作成懲戒判決，而為懲戒處分，並無「官官相護」之現象，應予以肯定，更藉此彰顯保障法官獨立之決心。

Our legal system has enacted the Judges Law, which regulates matters such as the status, qualifications, appointment, powers, supervision, and discipline of judges. The Judges Law contains special provisions for the discipline of judges, clearly different from the discipline of general civil servants. That is, judges are not subject to discipline except in accordance with the Judges Law, thus upholding the status of judges and implementing the constitutional principle of guaranteeing judicial independence.
The Judges Law explicitly establishes the Judicial Yuan's Duty Law to handle cases involving the discipline of judges. Therefore, the disciplinary procedure for judges has become more court-like and procedural. The trial procedure adopts the principles of direct trial, oral argument, adversarial trial, and defense, and provides the judge subject to discipline with the opportunity to make a final statement. Furthermore, a two-tiered appeal system is adopted for disciplinary judgments.
This article, after careful review of the disciplinary judgments rendered by the Judicial Yuan's Duty Court and the Disciplinary Court, finds them to be appropriate in terms of both fact-finding and application of law. Regardless of whether it's the Judicial Yuan's Disciplinary Court or the Court of Judicial Review's Disciplinary Tribunal, the majority of disciplinary cases involving judges result in disciplinary rulings. These rulings, which impose disciplinary measures, demonstrate no instances of ''official protection'' and should be affirmed. This further highlights the determination to safeguard judicial independence.