大法庭制度之回顧與展望：法源理論下的法官法、裁判先例效力與先例見解變更的方法論觀察

The Grand Chamber System in Retrospect and Perspective: Methodological Observations on the Judges Act, the Effect of Judicial Precedents, and the Alteration of Precedential Views from the Standpoint of the Theory of Legal Sources

大法庭制度運作迄今已逾5年，但就包含大法庭裁定在內的終審法院裁判是否屬法源或其法源性質，乃至於其效力如何理解，以及終審法院本身變更法律見解有何方法論或釋義學上的要求等根本問題，似仍少有進一步討論。此等問題並不能僅由大法庭裁定對提案庭提交之案件具拘束力一句即能獲致解答。大法庭裁定對於終審法院提案庭及其餘各庭，乃至於其他法院究應發揮何種效力，是否為其裁判時應適用之法源的問題，乃涉及法律體系中之承認規則（即法源）為何的認定，亦即法適用者究竟應如何看待、鑑別大法庭裁定的根本性問題。就此有待探問的爭議即為，大法庭裁定是否為法源，如是，又是何種的法源性質。若未直接面對此一問題，即難直視大法庭裁定取代原有的判例或決議制度後，是否就可以解決原先判例或決議有無具有所謂「法律拘束力」之爭議。為釐清此一爭議，本文先回溯關於法官法之法源性質，進而以此清楚界定包括大法庭裁定在內的終審法院裁判先例該具有如何的規範效力與拘束力，包括對於其他法院之拘束，以及自我拘束，就後者而言，即涉及判決先例見解變更的問題。
質言之，大法庭裁定一方面既不能重如泰山（具有如同法律拘束力），侵犯審判獨立；另方面也不該輕如鴻毛，偏離終審法院先前見解時，應負有特殊之說理義務，否則將有害於法一致性與安定性。因此，在初步釐清一些對於大法庭制度所提出之質疑後，本文擬先就大法庭裁定應具有如何之法源地位加以討論；再針對終審法院若欲變更其先例時，應負擔之特殊說理負擔略予分析；最後提出本文結論。

The Grand Court has been in operation for more than five years. However, fundamental issues such as whether the decisions of the court of final appeal, including the rulings of the Grand Court, constitute a source of law, their legal nature, the interpretation of their binding effect, and the methodological or legal dogmatic requirements for the court of final appeal to change its legal views have received little further discussion. These questions cannot be fully answered by the simple statement that the Grand Court’s decisions are binding only on the submitting panel. The issue of what kind of binding effect the Grand Court’s ruling should have over the submitting panel of the court of final appeal, its other panels, and even other courts, and whether it constitutes a legal source to be applied in judgments, pertains to the identification of the recognition rules within the legal system, that is, what constitutes a source of law. This, in turn, raises the fundamental question of how legal practitioners should regard and differentiate the nature of the Grand Court's rulings. The controversy to be addressed here is whether the Grand Court's ruling constitutes a source of law, and if so, what is its nature as a source of law. Without directly confronting this issue, it is difficult to determine whether the replacement of the original precedent or decision system by the Grand Court's rulings can resolve the debate over whether precedents or decisions previously had any binding legal effect. To clarify this issue, this article first reviews the legal nature of judicial law to clearly define the normative and binding effect of the decisions of the court of final appeal, including the rulings of the Grand Court should possess, particularly their binding effect on other courts as well as on the court itself. The latter issue concerns the change of legal opinions in judicial precedents.
Furthermore, to put it succinctly, the Grand Court's rulings should neither be as weighty as law (which would infringe upon judicial independence) nor as insignificant as to allow deviations from the court’s prior rulings without a special obligation to provide reasoning, which would harm legal consistency and stability. Thus, after addressing some initial criticisms of the Grand Court, this article will first discuss the legal status of Grand Court rulings as a source of law. It will then briefly analyze the specific reasoning burden the court of the final appeal should bear when altering its precedents, and finally, the article will present its conclusions.