論國民參與刑事審判制度的合憲性爭議——以日本裁判員制度之相關合憲性討論為借鏡

Abstract

對於國民參與刑事審判制度（陪審、參審等）已經存在於制度中數百年以上的國家而言，合憲性的問題似乎並不存在，但對於日本、韓國、臺灣等東亞民主國家而言，因為憲法中似乎沒有預留國民參與刑事審判制度的空間（憲法沉默），也欠缺此種制度的法律傳統，所以合憲性的問題變得非常巨大。本文以為，我國憲法的沉默並不代表制憲者拒絕國民參與刑事審判制度，但也不代表憲法接受任何形式的審判制度。至於憲法容許國民參與刑事審判制度的底線為何？則應該從憲法條文中有關司法權、刑事被告權利的相關規定中尋找。讓具備解釋、適用法律專業的法官成為法院的當然構成員，且能充分發揮其功能，以確保抽象的法律能夠在具體個案中被正確地解釋、適用，本文認為乃是我國憲法對於司法權建制及刑事被告權利保障的基本要求，故應以此為前提，進行後續的制度設計，始能謂為合憲。

For countries which have had the Lay Participation System (such as the Jury and Civil Judge System) for hundreds of years, constitutional problems seemingly do not exist. But for Far East Asian Countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, the lack of preservative provisions of the Lay Participation System in their Constitutions, (also called “the silence of the Constitution”), the constitutional problems could be enormous. In my opinion, the silence of the Constitution does not mean that the legislators of Taiwan’s Constitution refuse Lay Participation in any form, but at the same time it does not mean that they will accept Lay Participation in all forms. What is the lowest conceivable demand of Lay Participation from Taiwan’s Constitution? We shall investigate the provisions of judicial authority and criminal defendant’s rights in our Constitution. The substantial role of the “Judge” who has the professional ability to interpret and apply the law correctly in a tribunal, for the assurance of the abstract law can be interpreted and applied correctly in concrete cases, in my opinion, is the basic demand of judicial authority and the rights of criminal defendants in Taiwan’s Constitution. By treating the basic demand as an assumption, we may then introduce the constitutional Lay Participation System in Taiwan.