Re-thinking Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts-Perspective from the German Experience

Abstract

憲法法院解釋常見不同意見書，如併入協同意見書的話，則於我國釋憲實務上，不贊同多數意見決定或理由者並不在少。從憲法規範性之找尋、特別是憲法與社會現實之角度出發，更嚴謹與深刻的看待不同意見制度之功能與意義，德國憲法訴訟制度數十年來的發展，包括1990年代以後德東各邦憲法法院法立法過程中之討論，重新展開相關問題的思考與辯論，可提供一定的參考。司法權的民主正當性，不在於法官選任的鎖鏈式民主內涵之引入，而在於法的拘束，就憲法訴訟而言，特別是透過憲法規範性的找尋，正面的回應社會現實與意識之變遷，適當的反映不同之社會力量與主張，展現多元的社會現實與相應之憲法開放性，有助於社會接下來的進一步發展，應是不同意見制度的關鍵所在。

＂Dissenting＂ are frequent in our Justice of The Constitutional Court opinions. Along with concurring, many disagree with majority`s opinions or rationales. Searching with eye to the characteristics of constitution as statute, and the perspective of social reality, including 1990s legislating process of constitutional court law in Germany eastern states, the function and purposes of ＂dissenting＂ could be understood in a different way. The legitimate of judicial power dose not originate from the agreement of the appointment of judges by legislative power, but from the biding power of law; as to constitutional litigation especially, it`s legitimate comes from the searching of constitution statute, responding the changing of society and reflecting different social group`s value and claims. The key goal of dissenting is to show the diversity of social facts and the possibility of constitution interpretation, and be helpful for social progress.