從制度的權力角色定位檢視憲法訴訟受理及程序合法要件

Acceptance and Admissibility Requirements in Constitutional Proceedings: An Institutional Power Perspective

自2022年憲法訴訟法施行後，憲法法庭的案件審理已全面實現審判化，非如過往適用司法院大法官審理案件法時期，是以「解釋憲法」的方式扮演「釋疑者」之角色。然即使憲法法庭已以法院的形式，依據憲法事後控制其他國家權力運作，惟在舊制時期便備受詬病的「黑箱」不受理決議，似未隨新制上路而獲得解決。在我國憲法訴訟制度下，憲法訴訟法是否賦予憲法法庭得享一般性的選案自由，尚非十分明確。特別是憲法訴訟法第61條第1項規定，另以「憲法重要性」或「為貫徹聲請人基本權利所必要」作為過濾機制，以致針對憲法訴願，憲法法庭是否就受理與否握有裁量權，抑或其應於此等另設之受理要件滿足時，負有受理聲請之義務，又顯得愈加模糊。由於此等問題涉及規範規劃上究是如何定位憲法法庭之權力角色，是本文擬在就個別憲法訴訟類型之合法性要件為探討前，先嘗試釐清上述疑義，再就憲法訴願、具體規範審查的程序合法要件進行解析。此外，因由國家最高機關所提出之聲請，究屬主觀或客觀憲法訴訟於我國尚有爭議，而此復與其權力角色之定位相關，因此本文擬於確認國家最高機關、立法委員之聲請，依其制度目的屬何訴訟類型後，再行探討其等程序合法要件應如何解釋。

Following the enactment of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act in 2022, the Constitutional Court has successfully transitioned to a more judicial approach in handling cases. This contrasts with the previous era, governed by the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, in which the Court played the role of“interpreter of the Constitution”. However, even though the Constitutional Court now operates as a court that supervises the functioning of the other branches of government in accordance with the Constitution, the problem of the criticized“black box”inadmissibility decision from the previous system seems to persist, unresolved with the introduction of the new system. In Taiwan's constitutional process system, it is unclear whether the Constitutional Court Procedure Act grants the Constitutional Court general discretion to accept or reject cases. In particular, Article 61(1) of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act establishes a filtering mechanism based on“constitutional significance”or being“necessary to satisfy the petitioners’fundamental rights”. This ambiguity raises the question of whether the Constitutional Court has the discretion to accept or reject a constitutional complaint, or whether it is obliged to accept a complaint once these additional admissibility requirements are met. Given that these issues revolve around the positioning of the Constitutional Court’s power in terms of normative planning, this article will attempt to clarify the uncertainties before addressing the admissibility requirements of different types of constitutional process. It will analyze the admissibility requirements of constitutional complaints and concrete review of a statute. Furthermore, there is still controversy as to whether the claims raised by the highest state organs are to be classified as subjective or objective constitutional claims. Given the connection with the positioning of their power roles, this article aims to categorize the lawsuits initiated by the highest state organs and members of the legislature in accordance with the purpose of the system. It will then examine the interpretation of the admissibility requirements of these claims.