憲法法庭之新挑戰：從憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號【改定親權事件暫時處分案】判決談起

New Challenges of the Taiwan Constitutional Court: Starting from TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-8

本文從憲法法庭111年憲判字第8號【改定親權事件暫時處分案】判決談起，說明憲法法庭面對裁判憲法審查制度之新挑戰，即受理審查及實體審查之挑戰。受理審查之挑戰，攸關憲法法庭就裁判憲法審查案件的受理審查，現實上傾向於自由裁量下之受理審查，而如何予以操作方符合憲法訴訟法之相關規定；實體審查之挑戰，涉及憲法法庭就裁判憲法審查案件的實體審查，尚處於摸索中之實體審查階段，而如何具體操作之，以確保其審查的公平性與可預測性。為此，對於自由裁量下之受理審查的克服，憲法訴訟法第61條第1項宜修正為：「本節案件於具憲法價值者，受理之。」以減輕司法負擔。對於摸索中之實體審查的克服，應在既有的實體審查操作基礎上，增加更多的論證及說理，以提升司法信賴。於克服上開新挑戰的同時，憲法法庭宜賦予一般法院在憲法訴訟中程序參與者的地位，並考量司法信賴與司法負擔間之衡平，以認定憲法訴訟法第62條第1項的「管轄法院」。憲法法庭面對裁判憲法審查制度的新挑戰，不如說是「活的」憲法或憲法解釋本身之新挑戰，該制度反映了司法權分工與基本權利保障間、司法信賴與司法負擔間之衡平，而可能迎來新的司法改革契機。若憲法法庭對於該制度的運作能取得上開衡平，則不只讓人民信賴司法，更讓人民信賴憲法。

To explain the new challenges faced by the Constitutional Court in the system of constitutionality of constitutional complaints, specifically regarding the challenges of procedural review and substantive review, this article begins with a discussion of TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-8. The challenge of procedural review concerns the tendency of the Constitutional Court to exercise the discretion of procedural review in adjudicating constitutionality of constitutional complaints. The key issue is how to apply it in compliance with the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. The challenge of substantive review involves the Constitutional Court’s ongoing exploration of substantive review in adjudicating constitutionality of constitutional complaints, focusing on how to ensure the fairness and predictability of its judgments. To address the challenge of procedural review, Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act should be amended to state:“Petitions under this Section are admissible insofar as they possess the constitutional value.”This would alleviate the judicial burden. For the challenge of substantive review, more arguments and reasoning based on the existing operations of substantive review should be incorporated to enhance the judicial trust. In overcoming new challenges, the Constitutional Court should grant ordinary courts the status of procedural participants in the constitutional litigation and consider the balance between judicial trust and judicial burden when determining the“competent court”of Article 62, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. The new challenges faced by the Constitutional Court in the system of constitutionality of constitutional complaints can be seen as new challenges to the“living”constitution or to the constitutional interpretation itself. The system reflects the balance between the division of judicial power and the protection of basic rights, as well as the balance between judicial trust and judicial burden. It may usher in an opportunity for new judicial reforms. If the Constitutional Court can strike such a balance, it will not only foster public trust in the judiciary but also enhance trust in the Constitution itself.