Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 權力分立與司法違憲審查—我國分立政府時期(2000-2008)之大法官解釋分析
The Separation of Powers and Judicial Review:An Analysis of the Grand Justice Interpretations Made in the Period of Taiwan’s Divided Government from 2000 to 2008
Authors: 陳文政博士
Chen, Wen-Cheng Ph.D.
Lin, Wen-Chih
Keywords: 分立政府
Divided government
Judicial review
Separation of powers
Democratic legitimacy
Issue Date: 2013
Abstract: 2000年民進黨總統候選人陳水扁,以比較多數贏得總統大選,是我國實施民主憲政以來,首度政黨輪替;但民進黨未能在同年底立法院的國會選舉取得過半席次,使得陳水扁於其任八年(2000-2008)執政期間,始終處在一個行政、立法權分屬不同政黨的「分立政府」狀態。 這時期,藍綠陣營對峙嚴重,總統本身陷入政治爭端的漩渦,要解決政治爭端或行政立法爭議,往往就僅剩交由司法部門讓大法官進行憲法解釋一途。類此,一個本於權力分立制度而生的權力機關,要去解釋其他權力機關之間、甚至本身也陷入其間的權力分立爭議,是相當有趣的描述。 因此,面對權力衝突,大法官如何經由制度設計、解釋理論與方法,遵循權力分立原則,以使其終局判決具有權威性、正當性,而讓權力衝突的雙方可以接受,甚至公民社會可以理解,乃本文研究旨趣。 文末並提出本文研究之主要發現:大法官透過功能主義途徑來解釋權力分立爭議的比例相當高;而其解釋方法多採目的性解釋與體系解釋;並以授權明確性原則作為主流判斷;從而本文推定大法官有司法積極主義傾向。本文也建議大法官解釋憲法時應考慮以記名表決方式為之,同時對於解釋文之呈現,亦應明示解釋目的與理論方法之依據,期以公開透明獲得信賴。
The presidential candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chen Shui-bian, won by a relative majority vote in 2000 national election, marking the first transfer of power since Taiwan established a constitutional democracy. However, DPP’s failure in a subsequent parliamentary election to secure over half of the legislative seats resulted in a "divided government" that characterized the eight years of the Chen administration (2000-2008), with executive and legislative powers being held by different political parties. It was a period of serious confrontation between the ruling and opposition camps, with President Chen himself mired in political controversies. Such matters of political disputes or administrative controversies are often best served by the Grand Justice’s interpretation of the Constitution. Against such backdrop, it is intriguing to examine how the judiciary, as a branch of government established for checks and balances, is being charged with interpreting the separation of powers among government agencies, as well as its role therein. In the face of conflict of powers among constitutional authorities, the question of how the Grand Justice draws on the institution, theories and methods in formulating interpretations to arrive at an outcome that is authoritative, legitimate and accepted by the conflicting parties, as well as the civil society, without compromising the separation of power, is the point of departure for this study. The study has found that a high proportion of the Grand Justices follow functionalism in interpreting the cases concerning separation of powers; a majority of purposive interpretations or context; “Ermachtigungsklarheit”is used as a key determinant by the majority of judgements. Based on the aforementioned findings, the study concludes that the Grand Justices of the Republic of China tend to follow judicial activism. The study proffers that the Grand Justices use recorded voting for interpreting and specify in interpretation documents the purpose and methodology being employed in the hope of achieving transparency and credibility.
Other Identifiers: GN0893100128
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
n089310012801.pdf2.27 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.