檢察權之監督-以國民參與不起訴處分審查為中心

Abstract

偵查為刑事訴訟程序中重要的一環，我國一向以檢察官為偵查主體，檢察官乃由實施偵查至裁判執行，而貫穿整個刑事訴訟程序。檢察官提起公訴後，我國刑事訴訟法第161條設有起訴審查制度及法院審判制度，使得檢察官起訴之案件受到相當程度的司法監督。然檢察官於偵查終結後，若認為被告犯罪嫌疑不足，而對被告為不起訴處分，以我國目前刑事訴訟法規定，乃以內部監督之再議及外部監督之聲請法院准許提起自訴(民國112年5月30日刑事訴訟法修正三讀通過並於6月21日公布施行而將原本「交付審判」制度轉型為「准許提起自訴」)對檢察官處分權作一定之監督。然長期以來，我國檢察官所為的非起訴決定，在法律規定之內部監督及外部監督下，始終無法獲得人民普遍之信賴。

人民參與審判制度已於民國112年實施，此為司法改革重要之項目。然外界所要求的不只是要實行人民參與審判程序，其對一向維持偵查不公開之檢察官偵查程序，也有要求改革之聲浪，其除了要求檢察官之偵查程序應更透明外，更希望亦能引進人民參與檢察官處分權之監督機制。但我國是否要引進人民參與檢察權之監督？仍值討論。

論者有認為因檢察官既是代表國家追訴犯罪，若將國家這兩個字取而代之叫做人民，那麼檢察官即是代表人民來追訴犯罪，檢察官的權力來源是受人民所囑託，則透過人民來監督制衡檢察權之行使，實符合檢察權之本質，況日本早有檢察審察會之運作，應可順勢引進人民參與不起訴處分審查之制度。

然而，在討論引進日本檢察審查會制度同時，自應先深入了解日本的檢察制度及其檢察權之監督形式，並構思此制度是否適合我國國情？運作後之成效如何？此制度對被告利益影響程度？人民本身是否有足夠的法律素養及能力做出正確之判斷？以及在我國現今已有再議及聲請法院准許提起自訴之制度，若引進人民參與監督之制度，該如何與現行制度調和？本文乃就上開問題由不同角度作探討，希能對我國目前已初步擬定之「國民參與不起訴處分審查法」草案有所助益。

Investigation is an important part of the criminal procedure. Our country has always used the prosecutor as the main body of the investigation. The prosecutor runs through the entire criminal procedure from the implementation of the investigation to the execution of the judgment. Article 161 of my country's Criminal Procedure Law sets up a prosecution review system and court trial system after the prosecutor files a public prosecution, so that the cases prosecuted by the prosecutor are subject to a considerable degree of judicial supervision. However, after the conclusion of the investigation, if the prosecutor believes that the defendant is not suspected of committing a crime, and the defendant is not prosecuted, according to the current criminal procedure law of our country, the reconsideration of internal supervision and the transfer of external supervision to trial (May 30, 112 The third reading of the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law passed the transformation of the system of " setting for trial " to "allowing private prosecution") to supervise the prosecutor's disciplinary power to a certain extent. However, for a long time, the non-prosecution decisions made by our country's prosecutors have not been able to gain the general trust of the people under the internal and external supervision stipulated by law.

The People's Participation in Judgment System was implemented in the 112th year of the Republic of China. This is an important project of judicial reform. However, what the outside world demands is not only the implementation of people's participation in the trial procedure, but also voices calling for reform of the prosecutor's investigation procedure, which has always been kept secret. In addition to demanding that the prosecutor's investigation procedure should be more transparent, they hope that it can also introduce a supervision mechanism for the people to participate in the prosecutor's disposition power. But should our country introduce people to participate in the supervision of procuratorial power? Still worth discussing.

Some commentators believe that since prosecutors prosecute crimes on behalf of the country, if the word "country" is replaced by the word "people", then prosecutors are prosecuting crimes on behalf of the people. Checking and balancing the exercise of the procuratorial power is in line with the essence of the procuratorial power. Moreover, Japan has long had the operation of the Procuratorial Review Committee, and it should be possible to introduce a system of people's participation in the review of non-prosecution sanctions.

However, while discussing the introduction of the Japanese Procuratorial Review Committee system, we should first have a deep understanding of Japan's procuratorial system and the form of supervision of procuratorial power, and conceive whether this system is suitable for our country's national conditions? What is the effect after operation? How does this system affect the defendant's interests? Do the people themselves have sufficient legal literacy and ability to make correct judgments? And in our country now there is a system of reconsideration and setting for trial. If the system of people's participation in supervision is introduced, how should it be reconciled with the current system? This article discusses the above-mentioned issue from different angles, hoping to be helpful to the draft of the "National Participation and Non-Prosecution Disposition Review Law" that has been initially drafted in our country.